|
GOP Abortion Plank Needs New
Emphasis on Compassion
David C. Reardon
Every politician hates abortion. Some support the right to
abortion, of course, but they all hate the issue. It is extraordinarily divisive--perhaps
the most impassioned issue of our day. Opinions are so polarized that it is nearly
impossible for politicians to do what they do best: compromise. Without room for
compromise, coalitions (the very fabric of the political process) are constantly at risk
of unraveling.
This is the problem that continues to plague Bob Dole's
presidential campaign. Not all economic conservatives share the anti-abortion views of
moral conservatives, and Dole needs the support of both. To hold this uneasy coalition
together, Dole and Henry Hyde, the GOP Platform Committee chairman, have agreed to add a
new statement to the party platform calling for tolerance and diversity on divisive issues
like abortion.
Inclusion, however, is simply not enough for people like Ann
Stone, president of Republicans for Choice. Stone is critical of the new platform
language, saying, "This is trying to have it both ways, and it doesn't work."
She and her supporters are promising a convention floor fight, or at least a high profile
battle in the media.
This public relations war will weaken the Republican's
efforts to make pro-choice voters feel more comfortable with Dole. It is difficult to
"agree to disagree" when there is a contingent of pro-choice Republicans
shouting, "He has abandoned you!"
The new message of tolerance for differing views is simply
not enough to ease the anxieties of the middle majority. What is still sorely missing in
the proposed platform language is a healthy dose of compassion. If Dole really wants to
gain ground with the abortion issue, he will need to show the ambivalent majority that he
has a heart for women--and a plan to help them. This is not as difficult as it may appear.
The vast majority of Americans clearly dislike abortion. In
the most detailed Gallup poll ever done on abortion attitudes, James Davison Hunter and
Carl Bowman found that nearly 80 percent of adults believe abortion involves the
destruction of a human life. But most of these people also believe abortion must be
tolerated. Why? Because this "mushy middle" has divided loyalties. While the
destruction of human fetuses bothers them, often very deeply, their hearts are primarily
focused on the welfare of women. Abortion, they might say, is always regrettable, but it
is a "necessary evil."
For this middle majority it is not the long range goal of
eliminating abortion that offends them. Most would agree that, in a better world, abortion
should not exist. What most offends them is that anti-abortionists seem insensitive to the
plight of women. They are appalled that anyone would dare to stand in judgment over those
women and men who find themselves confronted with the agonizing decision to abort.
This dislike of judgmentalism should not be underestimated.
The middle majority includes most of the twenty-five million women who have had abortions,
the male partners who supported, encouraged, or pushed for their abortions, plus many
times more friends and family members--the loved ones who resent anyone who would dare to
condemn their beloved "Susan."
If Dole wants to attract the respect of this middle majority,
he must reflect their love and concern for those who have had abortions. To put it another
way, proper balance will be achieved not by compromising statements of support for the
rights of unborn children but rather by uncompromising statements of compassion and
concern for women.
This pro-woman policy statement should cover seven major
points, something along the following lines:
- We, the leaders of the Republican Party understand and
sympathize with the tremendous pressures which lead women to make the painful decision to
abort.
- We oppose any efforts to vilify those who have had abortions.
- We believe greater compassion and understanding are
indispensable to the process of healing the personal and social pains caused by abortion.
- We seek to protect the rights and welfare of both women and
their unborn children. Until a consensus can be developed to restore the legal status of
unborn children under our constitution, we can and will protect the legitimate rights and
welfare of women.
- We believe the most effective means toward reducing abortions
in the short-term is to protect the rights and welfare of the many thousands of women who
are being pressured into unwanted abortions for the convenience of others.
- We will seek to protect the civil right of women to full
disclosure of all information which may be relevant to their decision to refuse a
recommendation for abortion
- In far too many cities, there are abortion clinics which place
the physical and mental health of women at risk in their quest for ever cheaper, and more
profitable, abortions. We believe the quality of reproductive health care services can
best be ensured through the application of strict liability standards which will empower
women, not the government, the de facto power to regulate abortion clinic practices by
recourse to the civil courts.
This proposed strategy does not require the Republicans to
weaken their party's support for a Human Life Amendment. Instead, it outlines a more
immediately practical way to reduce abortions. What is especially important about this
approach is that it respects the instincts of the middle majority of Americans, who are
uncomfortable with abortion but only want it stopped in a way which will expand women's
rights.
By adopting this proposal, Republicans will be helping to
move our country beyond the notion that one political party represents women and the other
represents unborn children. People of goodwill should be concerned about both. People of
wisdom will recognize that we cannot help one without helping the other. What the middle
majority wants is not more evasions, but a plan that is authentically both pro-life and
pro-woman.
------------------------------------------
David C. Reardon, Ph.D., is the author of Making Abortion
Rare: A Healing Strategy for a Divided Nation, Acorn Books, 1996.
|
