When the Supreme
Court handed down its sweeping Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, pro-abortion
advocates thought that their battle was over. Protests against the Court's
ruling might be intense but would soon die away, they believed.
For 25 years, the pro-life movement as a whole, and the pro-life forces
in Congress in particular, have proved them wrong.
Throughout the quarter century since Roe v. Wade, NRLC and other
pro-life groups have worked with like-minded members of Congress to challenge
Roe v. Wade and to counter ever-broadening attacks on the sanctity
of innocent human life. Although Roe v. Wade has not yet been overturned,
the pro-life movement in Congress has won many victories. Without doubt,
millions of people are alive today as a direct result of those victories.
Roe v. Wade
Brings
Abortion Battle to Congress
During the 1960s and early 1970s, pro-abortion
political groups, in alliance with many organs of the institutional news
media, pushed for the legalization of abortion in states across the nation.
In 1971, Senator Bob Packwood (R-Or.) introduced a bill intended to legalize
abortion nationwide. However, Congress did not begin to grapple with the
abortion issue in earnest until after the Supreme Court handed down Roe
v. Wade on January 22, 1973.
Constitutional amendments to overturn the Court's ruling were immediately
introduced in both houses of Congress, but for years such proposals languished
in hostile committees. From 1973 through 1980, both houses of Congress were
under continuous Democratic majority control. While many individual Democratic
lawmakers voted pro-life, the key party leaders consistently blocked pro-life
legislation.
On April 28, 1976, the Senate did conduct sort of a "test vote"
on a proposed Human Life Amendment to the Constitution proposed by Senator
Jesse Helms (R-NC). The measure drew 40 votes - - a significant showing,
but far short of the level of support required. A constitutional amendment
requires approval by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress (if all
lawmakers vote, this is 67 senators and 290 House members), plus approval
by three quarters (38) of the state legislatures.
However, lawmakers discovered another area - - federal funding of abortion
- - in which they could advance the pro-life cause without needing super-majority
support, and even over the opposition of some key committee chairmen.
Curbing Federal
Support for Abortion
Immediately after Roe v. Wade, without any
action by Congress, the federal government began paying for abortions on
a huge scale, mainly through the federal-state Medicaid program. By 1976,
Medicaid was funding about 300,000 elective abortions a year for indigent
women.
In 1974, pro-life lawmakers failed in their initial attempts to restrict
federal funding of abortion. But on June 28, 1976, the House approved (207-167)
a "rider" to an appropriations bill offered by freshman Rep. Henry
Hyde (R-Il.) prohibiting the use of federal health funds "to pay for
or to encourage or promote abortion." On the same day, the Senate overwhelmingly
rejected the pro-life amendment - - the precursor of many further battles
between the House and Senate over federal funding of abortion. Nevertheless,
the Hyde Amendment was enacted in 1976, and has been on the books, in slightly
different forms, ever since.
(In June 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde
Amendment, 5-4. The majority of states have enacted similar restrictions
on tax-funded abortions.)
Since the late 1970s, pro-life members of Congress have also won enactment
of a number of other restrictions on the funding or promotion of abortion
by various programs under federal control, including the military, federal
employees' health plans, and the federal legal services program. Many other
legislative battles have focused on counseling and referral for abortions
within clinics funded by a major federal "family planning" program
known as Title X ("Title 10").
Beginning in 1973, pro-life forces have also been successful in placing
important restrictions on federal funding of harmful experimentation on
living human embryos conceived through in vitro fertilization, and
on unborn and newly born babies. (See "The U.S. Government and Fetal
Research: A Record of Shame," by Richard Doerflinger, page 14.)
In 1984, President Reagan adopted a policy that U.S. foreign aid funds would
not be given to private organizations that perform or actively promote abortion
as a method of family planning in developing nations. This pro-life policy
came to be known as the "Mexico City Policy," because it was announced
at a UN-sponsored population conference in Mexico City. Five years after
adoption of the policy, The New York Times quoted pro-abortion leaders
as complaining that it had resulted in "a near halt in the liberalization
of abortion laws in third world countries." Opponents of the policy
made numerous attempts to overturn it, but all such attempts were defeated
in Congress. However, President Clinton used his executive power to overturn
the policy in 1993, and subsequent congressional attempts to restore it
have so far been unsuccessful.
In the House, the long fight to curb U.S.-subsidized abortion advocacy has
been led by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ). Indeed, Smith - - the longtime
co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus - - has been a leader or key player
on virtually every pro-life activity in Congress since his election in 1980
- - a record rivaled among House members only by Congressman Hyde, whose
1976 victory in curbing tax-funded abortion was just the first in a very
long list of pro-life legislative accomplishments which now spans more than
two decades.
Impact of Pro-Life Vote
Issues such as the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico
City Policy are related directly to Congress's role in appropriating funds
for various federal programs, and Congress votes on at least a few such
pro-life policies nearly every year.
By annually forcing votes on such issues beginning in the 1970s, lawmakers
such as Senator Helms and Congressman Hyde forced their colleagues to take
on-the-record positions on right-to-life issues. Information on legislators'
voting records on abortion were then placed in the hands of citizens by
NRLC and NRLC's state affiliates.
The impact of pro-life citizens soon became evident in congressional races.
As early as 1974, abortion was a prominent issue in the re-election race
of Sen. Bob Dole (R-Ks.). By 1978, the pro-life vote had a widely noted
impact on the outcome of several U.S. Senate races, including the defeat
of pro-abortion Senator Dick Clark (D-Iowa). Editorial writers lamented
the influence of so-called "single-issue voters," but to no avail
- - in the 1980 election, pro-abortion Senate candidates went down to defeat
in numerous races, and the pro-life side picked up about 10 votes in the
Senate, as the Republicans took majority control of that body. Pro-life
strength also increased in the House.
With their new strength, and the backing of newly inaugurated pro-life President
Ronald Reagan, pro-life legislators during 1981-83 pushed hard for multiple
measures to directly challenge Roe v. Wade. However, none of these
measures cleared the multiple obstacles erected by determined pro-abortion
lawmakers and their formidable allies in the news media. A "Human Life
Bill" proposed by Senator Helms, declaring that the life of each human
being begins at conception, was blocked in the Senate by a pro-abortion
filibuster in 1982. A year later, a constitutional amendment to overturn
Roe v. Wade, proposed by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), also failed,
49-50 - - 17 votes short of the required two-thirds margin.
Throughout this period, the House remained under Democratic control, and
key party leaders such as Speaker Tip O'Neill (D-Mass.), House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Peter Rodino (D-NJ), and Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee
Chairman Don Edwards (D-Ca.) were able to prevent the House from even voting
on measures such as a human life bill or the anti-Roe constitutional
amendment.
Focus on Supreme Court
Beginning in the mid-1980s, pro-abortion groups
such as NARAL began to push pro-abortion senators to oppose nominees to
the Supreme Court who they feared would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In 1986, Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and other leading pro-abortion senators failed
in an attempt to block President Reagan's promotion of Associate Justice
William Rehnquist to chief justice (a move which, if successful, would also
have blocked the confirmation of Antonin Scalia to replace Rehnquist as
associate justice).
But the danger to potentially anti-Roe nominees became severe after
the 1986 election, in which Democrats picked up eight seats and regained
majority control of the Senate. Pro-Roe Senator Joseph Biden (D-De.)
became chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The change in party control
set the stage for one of the pro-life movement's biggest legislative setbacks-
- the Oct. 23, 1987 rejection (58-42) of the nomination of anti-Roe
jurist Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. The seat ultimately went to Anthony
Kennedy, who had not publicly taken a position on Roe and who ultimately,
in 1992, voted to reaffirm the core holdings of Roe.
The focus on Supreme Court vacancies became even more acute after July 3,
1989, when the Supreme Court's decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health
Services seemed to open the door to some state limitations on abortion.
Pro- abortion political groups and their allies in the media created a perception
that politicians who supported the pro-life cause were placing themselves
at increasing political risk. Despite considerable empirical evidence that
this was untrue, some lawmakers believed it for a time and changed their
positions on abortion-related issues.
As one result, Congress during 1989-92 approved several measures to weaken
or repeal previously enacted pro-life policies.
None of those pro-abortion initiatives actually became law, because President
Bush used his veto power 10 times during 1989-92 to prevent enactment of
any pro-abortion legislation.
When presented with his first Supreme Court vacancy in 1990, Bush nominated
New Hampshire jurist David Souter, who had no clear public position on Roe
v. Wade. For a second vacancy, in 1992, Bush nominated conservative
Judge Clarence Thomas, touching off a confirmation battle that involved
pro-life and pro-abortion groups, among others; Thomas was narrowly confirmed,
52-48.
The consequences of these political battles over Supreme Court nominations
were spelled out in 1992, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed the central
holdings of Roe v. Wade on a 5-4 vote in Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Justice Anthony Kennedy - - holding
the seat to which Bork had been nominated - - voted to reaffirm Roe,
as did Souter (along with 1981 Reagan appointee Sandra O'Connor, 1970 Nixon
appointee Harry Blackmun, and 1975 Ford appointee John Paul Stevens). Justices
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas all voted to overturn Roe, as did Justice
Byron White, a 1962 appointee of President Kennedy. (In 1993 and 1994, Justices
White and Blackmun were succeeded by two pro-abortion appointees of President
Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, respectively.)
The Clinton Era
Even though the Supreme Court reaffirmed the central
holdings of Roe in 1992, the Court continued to allow some state
regulation of abortion, and the basic legitimacy of Roe v. Wade itself
continued to be challenged by a strong minority of Supreme Court justices.
Therefore, beginning in 1989, NARAL and other pro-abortion groups pressed
Congress for enactment of a federal statute that would guarantee nationwide
legal abortion on demand even if Roe v. Wade was weakened or overturned.
This bill, called the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), would invalidate
virtually any state limitation on access to abortion, even measures deemed
permissible by the Supreme Court, such as short mandatory waiting periods,
right-to-know laws, and restrictions on tax-funded abortions.
The push for action on this legislation stepped up dramatically after Bill
Clinton was elected President in November 1992. During his campaign for
the presidency, Clinton had pledged to support enactment of FOCA and repeal
of the Hyde Amendment, among other pro-abortion goals. When Clinton was
inaugurated in January 1993, pro-abortion forces announced that enactment
of FOCA was their top priority, and predicted that it would occur within
six months. But NRLC, its state affiliates and other groups that oppose
abortion waged a successful campaign to educate the public regarding the
extreme effects of the bill. Lawmakers with "mixed" positions
on abortion-related issues backed away from the bill, and it died.
In another dramatic pro-life victory in 1993, the House rejected a Clinton-backed
attempt to repeal the Hyde Amendment.
In 1994, President Clinton's top legislative priority was enactment of a
national health plan that would have eliminated all restrictions on abortion,
mandated establishment of numerous new abortion clinics across the nation,
and forced taxpayers to pay for essentially every abortion performed in
the U.S. as well as establishing health care rationing. Another massive
public education campaign, in which NRLC played a central role, was a major
factor in the defeat of this legislation.
In short, the pro-life movement fought a highly successful defensive war
during 1993-94. Nevertheless, President Clinton and his pro-abortion appointees
were able to shift federal policy markedly in the pro-abortion direction
through the use of presidential directives, appointment powers, and other
executive authority.
1994 Election Turns Tide
However, the congressional balance shifted drastically
for the better with the November 1994 congressional election. Due in part
to a strong turnout by pro-life voters in many areas, the Republicans took
control of both the Senate and, for the first time since 1954, the House.
Although this shift in party control placed a few pro-abortion Republican
lawmakers in positions of increased power, and diminished the clout of a
few pro-life Democrats, on the whole, the change in majority control was
dramatically to the benefit of the pro-life cause.
For example, Congressman Hyde became chairman of the powerful House Judiciary
Committee, and he placed another pro-life champion, Congressman Charles
Canady (R-Fl.), in the chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, which
has jurisdiction over much right-to-life legislation. Pro-life leader Rep.
Chris Smith took over the chairmanship of a key subcommittee overseeing
U.S. involvement in various international organizations, including those
involved in various abortion-related activities.
A similar shift occurred in the Senate, where pro-life Senator Hatch took
over the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. In addition, the shift
in party control caused what is generally considered the most powerful of
all congressional leadership positions - - Senate majority leader - - to
pass into the hands of pro-life senators- - currently, Senator Trent Lott
(R-Ms.).
The shift in party control compelled pro-abortion forces to shift into a
defensive posture, and to rely upon President Clinton's commitment to their
cause. Notwithstanding that commitment, however, pro-life forces were able
to win enactment of several important policies during 1993-97, including
a ban on federal funding of harmful experimentation on living human embryos.
Partial-Birth Abortion
The greatest recent pro-life breakthrough came
on an entirely new front. In June 1995, Congressman Canady introduced a
bill crafted in part by NRLC to place a nationwide ban on procedures in
which a living baby is partly delivered alive before being killed - - an
act defined by Congress as partial-birth abortion. Most partial-birth
abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, although
such procedures have been done as late as the ninth month.
NARAL and other pro-abortion groups vigorously opposed the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act, which they viewed as an assault on Roe v. Wade.
As a pro-abortion leader in the House, Rep. Barbara Kennelly (D-Ct.), put
it, "It is brutal. It is inhuman. And it should never be used. However,
may I say, that is not my decision. Under Roe v. Wade, the law of
the land, it is the decision of the mother and the doctor."
Millions of Americans were shocked and horrified to learn that such acts
as partial-birth abortions were performed and to hear it argued that such
brutalities were immune from restriction under Roe.
Reflecting popular sentiment, in 1995-96 large majorities in both the House
and Senate approved the bill - - the first direct federal ban on a type
of abortion since Roe v. Wade. President Clinton vetoed the bill,
and the Senate failed to override his veto.
Congress again approved the bill in 1997, and President Clinton vetoed it
again. During 1998, the congressional debate over partial-birth abortions
will continue, as the House and Senate again vote on whether to override
the veto.
Policies such as the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City Policy have saved
millions of lives over the past 25 years. Yet despite the pro-life movement's
successes in Congress since Roe v. Wade, the "culture of death"
is hardly in retreat - - indeed, every year brings new onslaughts on the
sanctity of innocent human life. To resist and turn back these assaults,
the pro-life forces in Congress must continue to grow in strength, and for
this to occur, even greater numbers of citizens must employ the power of
their ballots to create a government and system of laws that respect the
right to life of each innocent member of the human family.