The November 3 election results did not greatly alter the congressional balance on abortion-related policy issues.
In the Senate, the results appear to be about a wash. On the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, it appears that we have a net gain of one vote, since Senators-elect Blanche Lincoln (D-Ar.) and Evan Bayh (D-In.), while generally pro-abortion, have both expressed support for the ban. On other abortion-related issues, there has either been no net change or a one-vote loss for the pro-life side.
In the House, on abortion-related issues, it appears that the pro-life side has lost from four to ten seats, depending on the specific issue. On the Hyde Amendment, for example, it appears that the loss is eight to ten seats - - unfortunate, but hardly critical, since the Hyde Amendment passed this year by a margin of 270-150.
These results will be analyzed further and NRLC will consult with pro-life congressional leaders during the weeks and months ahead regarding a pro-life agenda for the 106th Congress. Prior to that, it would be premature to discuss that agenda in detail.
But obviously, it will include a renewed drive to enact the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. We expect to pass that bill and present it to President Clinton (and Vice President Gore) yet again.
The explanations with which Clinton originally justified his veto have long since been discredited, with the endorsement of the ban by the American Medical Association and acknowledgment by Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, that partial-birth abortions are commonly performed on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Claims to the contrary, Fitzsimmons admitted, were a "party line" concocted by pro-abortion advocacy groups, which he had adopted. He explained, "[I] lied through my teeth." (The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997)
It is noteworthy that many campaigning pro-abortion incumbent lawmakers this year found themselves very much on the defensive on the partial-birth abortion issue. Most took cover behind their endorsements of "phony bans" such as the Hoyer-Greenwood bill or the Daschle amendment.
Unfortunately, local (and national) journalists have often gullibly accepted such endorsements as bona fide support for " banning late-term abortions." In reality, these are hollow bills concocted by pro-abortion politicians which, in substance, would not ban a single late-term abortion. Even Con-gressman Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the author of the House version of the "phony ban," has admitted on the record that his bill would allow third- trimester abortions for "mental health" and "psychological trauma." And Colorado abortionist Dr. Warren Hern, author of the standard textbook on late-term abortion procedures, stated (accurately) that the version promoted by Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) would permit him to perform a third-trimester abortion on any pregnant woman.
In the new Congress, we will also renew the effort to enact the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill passed the House on July 15, 276-150, and we expect that the margin would be only slightly diminished next year. There is also a majority in the Senate for this legislation, so we are hopeful that it can be sent to the White House at the appropriate time.
Free Speech About Politicians
National Right to Life has been in the forefront of groups opposing various restrictions on free speech on politicians that are being pushed under the rubric of "campaign finance reform." Overall, this was not a good election for those advocating such restrictions.
Certainly, Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wi.) skillfully exploited the enormous support for his speech-restrictive bill among the institutional news media. During the closing two weeks of the campaign, Feingold was the beneficiary of a great deal of naked advocacy journalism, portraying Feingold as a courageous foe of corruption. Some of the network news segments alone were surely equivalent in value to hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of favorable "issue ads" - - and hardly less one-sided.
But despite Feingold's narrow victory, the advocates of speech- restrictive "campaign reform" did not gain ground. We see no evidence that opposition to such legislation substantially hurt any congressional candidate. (See Dr. O'Steen's story, page 1.) Moreover, there are opponents of such speech restrictions among newly elected members of both parties, and proponents of the Shays-Meehan bill may actually have suffered a net loss of a couple of votes.
In the Senate, the pro-McCain-Feingold forces can show only 52 votes, eight votes short of what they need to overcome a filibuster - - a drop of two votes from their 1996 high of 54.
Senate candidate Scotty Baesler of Kentucky, the member of Congress who has been most clearly identified with the movement to overturn Buckley v. Valeo (the landmark Supreme Court decision defending free speech about politicians), declared that "campaign reform" would be a defining issue of his campaign. Baesler was defeated by Jim Bunning, who is both pro-life and an advocate of preserving free speech about politicians.
Baesler was the beneficiary of a huge campaign ($466,000, according to reports at the FEC) of independent TV "attack ads," funded with "soft money" by a nonprofit corporation called Campaign for America. Ironically, this group was formed to promote legislation that would greatly restrict free commentary on politicians, and to ban "soft money" as a corrupting influence. In this case, all of the money came from one individual, financier Jerome Kohlberg, Jr., who apparently feels that his money is non-corrupting because his heart is pure. Baesler publicly approved of the Campaign for America/Kohlberg expenditure. NRL PAC ran a radio ad making fun of Baesler's hypocrisy.