Of the House-passed pieces of pro-life legislation that Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and his Senate Democratic colleagues blocked in the 107th Congress, a bill to ban partial-birth abortion looks likeliest to pass next year.
“I will call it up, we will pass it, and the president will sign it,” says Trent Lott of Mississippi, who'll replace Daschle as Majority Leader in the Senate. The measure has been modified so that — sponsors hope — it will meet objections raised by the Supreme Court in striking down a Nebraska law against partial-birth abortion two years ago.
Chances also are good that some other measures stalemated by Daschle will be passed and signed into law by President Bush. These include bills guaranteeing that health care personnel and institutions can refuse involvement in abortion on conscience grounds, making it a crime to take a minor out of a 'parental notification' state for an abortion without her parents' approval, and providing penalties for killing an unborn child while committing a federal crime.
The situation on human cloning is more problematic. The authentically pro-life answer to cloning is a total ban, and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is sponsoring such a bill in the Senate. An alleged compromise would allow cloning for purposes which are described as therapeutic but which, given the state of cloning technology and its applications, are in fact for research.
Although the difference is clear, the waters have been muddied by lobbying and, not least, by the cover that comes from sponsorship of a research cloning bill by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who has a pro-life reputation. The danger is that the misleading 'therapeutic' tag hung on research cloning will impress waffling senators as a way out of a tight spot.
The state of the question on cloning underlines key facts about the 108th Congress. Although the House of Representatives generally can be relied on to vote prolife, even after Nov. 5 pro-choicers remain a majority in the Senate. Democrats are the core of pro-choice strength in both chambers, but the Senate has enough pro-choice Republicans like Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Olympia Snow of Maine, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island to tilt the scales against pro-life positions.
Catholic pro-lifers also face the painful irony that the high-visibility pro-choice champions in the 108th Congress will be the two Catholics who will serve as leaders of the Democrats in the Senate and House — Daschle and Nancy Pelosi of California.
Federal judgeships will be a critical focal point of the struggles between pro-lifers and pro-choicers that lie ahead. Immediately after Nov. 5 shell-shocked Democrats signed off on two Bush nominees they'd previously blocked, but that accommodating mood isn't likely to last, especially when and if a seat on the Supreme Court opens up. When that occurs, it will touch off a major confirmation fight in the Senate, with abortion at the heart of it and the outcome very much in doubt.
On Jan. 22, 2003, Americans will mark the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Although this anniversary will be a happier occasion for pro-lifers than many previous ones have been, overconfidence would be a serious mistake.
(Shaw is a freelance writer from Washington, D.C. You can email him at RShaw10290@aol.com and purchase his books by clicking here.)
