Ostracized when differing from party's abortion dogma

By PHILIP GAILEY

© St. Petersburg Times, published July 16, 2000

Just once, I wish our two major party presidential candidates would pick running mates who sent this message to the extremists on both sides of the abortion issue: Go to hell.

That's not likely to happen, of course. Republican George W. Bush will probably select a vice-presidential sidekick who is acceptable to the anti-abortion right. And Democrat Al Gore can be expected to play it safe with a running mate who will not offend his party's left wing, which demands unrestricted abortion rights.

Many a good man and woman who would make a strong vice president are eliminated from consideration by what has become a poisonous litmus test in American politics. In some ways, Democrats are more rigid than Republicans in applying this litmus test. Democratic elected officials with otherwise exemplary public records are not even allowed to address their national conventions if they they are out of step with party dogma on abortion rights.

A good example is the late Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania. As a two-term governor, Casey had a progressive record on health care, aid to the poor and other issues that used to define the Democratic Party. He was a New Deal liberal in full. But because he opposed abortion, he was vilified as an intolerant right-winger by party interest groups and denied an opportunity to address the 1992 Democratic National Convention that nominated the Clinton-Gore ticket. Democrats no longer tolerate open debate or political dissent on the abortion issue.

If Casey were still around, there is no doubt that Al Gore would ban him from the stage of this year's nominating convention. As a congressman and later as a U.S. Senator, Gore voted for restrictions on abortion. But once he became Bill Clinton's running mate and now is his party's presidential standard-bearer, Gore views any politician who holds the abortion views he once held as an unacceptable vice-presidential choice.

Anti-abortion Republicans are just as awful. They are warning Bush that if he selects a running mate who is not pure on the abortion issue, he can forget about their votes. But at least Republicans have opened their conventions to speakers who support abortion rights, as they did in 1996 when Colin Powell addressed the San Diego convention that nominated Bob Dole for president.

On abortion, both parties are outside mainstream opinion. Surveys consistently find that most Americans support the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing a woman's right to choose abortion, with some restrictions. The polls also show that a majority of Americans draw the line at the gruesome procedure known as "partial-birth" abortion and favor parental notification by minors seeking abortions.

This election year, we are again seeing just how fanatical activists on both sides of the abortion issue can be. When the name of Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana appeared on Gore's list of possible running mates, leaders of feminist groups reacted furiously.

"I think Bayh is very bad," said Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women.

Bayh takes pride in his record on women's issues. He counts himself as a reliable supporter of abortion rights and of equal rights for women across the board. So why is he unacceptable to feminists like Ireland? Bayh once voted for a bill to ban the "partial-birth" abortion procedure. He flunked his party's litmus test on abortion because of that single vote. By that standard, House Democratic leaders Richard Gephardt and David Bonior, both liberals, also would be disqualified.

Bayh, who was stunned by the reaction of feminist groups, told the Washington Post he had been on the side of abortion rights supporters on four out of five key Senate votes. But in the "all or nothing" politics of Washington, he added, "there is no room for any mixed feelings, when the American people themselves have some mixed feelings."

Meanwhile, Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania is under vicious assault by the Republican right. By most measures, Ridge would appear to be an ideal running mate for George W. Bush. Ridge is a decorated Vietnam veteran, the Roman Catholic son of a working-class family and a former congressman who knows something about how Washington works. In addition, Ridge would increase Bush's chances of carrying Pennsylvania, a key electoral state he needs to overcome Gore's advantage in California and New York.

The party's anti-abortion forces have threatened a loud and ugly revolt if Ridge winds up on the Republican ticket. Ridge supports the broad principle in the Roe vs. Wade decision, which has made his name anathema in anti-abortion circles. He gets no credit for his support of abortion restrictions. He opposes government funding of abortions, backs waiting periods, supports required parential consent for minors and opposes the "partial-birth" abortion procedure. But as far as anti-abortion conservatives are concerned, Ridge belongs on Al Gore's abortion-on-demand ticket.

I don't know if Ridge would be Bush's best vice-presidential choice. But I do know that by adding Ridge, or someone like him, to the ticket Bush would show that he is not a captive of his party's hard right. It would be a Sister Souljah moment in his campaign, and my estimation of Bush would rise considerably.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.