HOW TO DEFEAT A PRO-LIFE CANDIDATE [PART TWO]

By Carol Tobias, NRL PAC Director

In the 1998 election, some pro-life candidates faced intense challenges from formidable pro-abortion candidates. They should have been able to expect the full support of all the pro-life community, but didn't get it.

Instead, some pro-lifers who insisted they would support only 100% "pure" pro-life candidates divided the pro-life community and contributed to the defeat of the pro-life candidates. This cost babies' lives.

New York Senate Race

Pro-life Republican Senator Al D'Amato had been in the Senate since 1980. Shortly after coming to the Senate, Senator D'Amato co-sponsored a human life amendment to the Constitution. In 1983, he voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 1989, D'Amato signed a "friend-of-the-court" brief to the United States Supreme Court in the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services case, urging the court to overturn Roe. Overall, in his 18 years in the Senate, D'Amato cast 89 votes on abortion-related issues, voting with the pro-life movement 85 times.

Unfortunately, for some pro-lifers, that wasn't good enough. They wanted a senator with a pure, 100% record.

The same year that D'Amato was elected to the Senate, pro-abortion Democrat Charles Schumer was elected to the House. In the following 18-year period, Schumer voted consistently against all limits on abortion. From 1981 to 1998, Schumer voted on abortion 100 times, 97 of which he agreed with his pro-abortion allies.

Schumer co-sponsored the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" which would have invalidated almost all state restrictions on abortion. He also co-sponsored the "Reproductive Health Equity Act," a bill to require federal funding of abortion without restriction, throughout pregnancy, in all major federal health programs. Twice, Schumer signed friend-of-the-court briefs to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to uphold Roe v. Wade.

In 1998, Schumer challenged D'Amato for the Senate seat in one of the year's most intense, competitive races. Schumer made abortion a principal issue in the campaign.

Both Schumer and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League ran television commercials attacking D'Amato's pro-life position. Yet when faced with the prospect of re-electing pro-life D'Amato or electing pro-abortion champion Schumer, some pro-lifers in New York refused to support D'Amato because they said he wasn't "pro-life enough."

Throughout his career, D'Amato had voted for restrictions on government funding of abortion. Depending on the measure being voted on and what was possible to pass at the time, he voted to limit funding to life of the mother only or to limit funding to cases where the mother's life was in danger, or in cases of rape and incest. Yet during the campaign, his votes to prohibit funding except in life of mother, rape, and incest cases were used by some to show that he wasn't "really" pro-life.

Michael Long, pro-life leader of the New York Conservative Party, pointed out that instead of running away from the Right to Life Party line in New York, D'Amato sought it out. "That in itself speaks volumes," Long said. However, D'Amato was bitterly opposed by some who did not want him to appear on the Right to Life Party line in New York. Ultimately D'Amato had to win that position in a primary fight. (Note: The New York Right to Life Party is not affiliated with National Right to Life PAC, National Right to Life, or its New York affiliate, New York State Right to Life.)

When the final tally came in, D'Amato lost the Senate seat by 492,077 votes out of almost five million votes cast. Exit polling found that 7% of the voters said abortion was the most important issue in the race for them. Three percent voted for Schumer and 4% voted for D'Amato.

Did D'Amato lose because of his position on abortion? No. He had a net advantage with the voters because he was pro-life and Schumer was pro-abortion.

But he was hurt by those pro-lifers who worked to undermine his campaign. In many races, the pro-life candidate will need the full, active support of the pro-life community to prevail against a pro-abortion rival.

As David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., NRLC's executive director, stated, "Those pro-lifers in New York who insisted on a 'pure' senator got one. Chuck Schumer will be 'purely' pro-abortion."

South Carolina Governor's Race

In 1998 pro-life South Carolina Governor David Beasley (R) ran for re-election and was challenged by pro-abortion former Democratic state representative Jim Hodges. Their positions presented a clear contrast.

As a member of the legislature in 1991, Beasley introduced the Human Life Protection Act, an unsuccessful bill to ban abortion in South Carolina. He had a pro-life voting record and was elected governor in 1994 as a pro-life candidate. As governor, he promoted and signed legislation to ban partial-birth abortion and to prevent physician-assisted suicide in South Carolina.

Hodges was a pro-abortion leader in the legislature. In 1991, he stated that parents should have the right to end the lives of pre-born children by abortion, especially if the children are handicapped.

In 1992, The State, the Columbia newspaper, wrote, "Rep. Jim Hodges has consistently led the abortion-rights movement in the House Judiciary Committee...." He attempted to gut a parental consent bill through procedural votes, but voted for final passage when it became obvious the bill would pass. (The final vote was unanimous, 102-0.) Moreover, Hodges led the fight in the Judiciary Committee against Beasley's Human Life Protection Act.

With this clear contrast, some pro-lifers, in an attempt to defeat Beasley, promoted the campaign of a write-in candidate. They were upset because Beasley supported exceptions for abortion.

While his position was no abortion except in cases where the life of the mother was endangered and in cases of rape or incest, they argued that there should be no exceptions. However, the stated reason these pro-lifers opposed Beasley's re-election was because of "his failure to stop abortion in South Carolina."

Beasley lost to Hodges by roughly 86,000 votes out of more than a million votes cast. As in New York, Beasley didn't lose because he was pro-life, but he was hurt by pro-lifers who worked to undermine his campaign and supported the write-in campaign of a third-party candidate.

Are unborn babies in New York and South Carolina less at risk today because D'Amato and Beasley were defeated? Are unborn babies anywhere safer today because some pro-lifers refused to accept these "less than perfect" candidates and allowed pro-abortionists to be elected? I challenge any pro-lifer to answer "yes" and still be able to sleep at night.

Millions of babies are alive because of legislation passed with help from less-than-perfect pro-life candidates. As we approach another election cycle, we should remember that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.