THANKS BUT NO THANKS, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle told President Clinton on May 14. After days of haggling, the White House had drafted a letter that endorsed Daschle’s bill banning late-term abortions. But Daschle figured he’d be better off without the letter. Why? Opponents of abortion are profoundly distrustful of Clinton on the issue, convinced he says one thing, then does another. For instance, the president said last year he’d sign legislation outlawing partial-birth abortions if only an exception were added for cases in which a woman’s health is threatened. Oops, the White House said later, we forgot to mention one other exception: The ban must not cover partial-birth abortions in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy — when most of them occur. Clinton also assured Baptist leaders he didn’t want an exception for threats to mental health. Then he backed bills that allowed one. Anyway, the letter to Daschle was never released. Deferring to the senator, the president endorsed the bill verbally and off camera.
Maybe that explains why the press missed the significance of Clinton’s endorsement and of the Daschle bill itself. For Clinton and Daschle, the bill marked a real shift, not just a rhetorical one. The Daschle bill would put a sharp limit on the right to an abortion. All abortions after the point of viability (when the baby can live outside the womb) would be unlawful. And the Daschle bill didn’t include the usual catch-all exception for the “health” of the mother — an exception that has the effect of allowing abortion on demand. Daschle narrowed the exception to cases threatening death or ” grievous” physical injury to the woman.
True, the ban could still be evaded by abortionists, but they would face potential prosecution and stiff penalties. Moreover, the ban might reach into the second trimester, barring abortions as early as the 22nd or 23rd week of pregnancy, thus rolling back the reach of Roe v. Wade. Yes, Clinton and Daschle may have been trying to make their position on abortion more popular. But they did inch toward the pro-life position. They offered concessions not only in language and emphasis but also in substance.
So the question is: Might the president, Daschle, and others be prompted to move further? If so, the gridlock that has kept a ban on either late-term or partial-birth abortions from becoming law might be broken. The Daschle bill itself never had a chance. It was defeated 64 to 36 in the Senate. The principal pro-life measure banning partial-birth abortions with the single exception of protecting the life of the mother isn’t expected to become law either. It looks to be shy of sufficient votes to override a promised Clinton veto. Last year, when Clinton’s veto of a similar measure was sustained, no attempt at compromise was made. Now, given the new position of the White House and Daschle, there may be an effort. At least there will be a debate among pro-lifers over whether to mount one. Argues pro-lifer William Bennett: “We should say, Sen. Daschle, you were dead serious about reducing the number of abortions. Let’s talk.”
At the moment, pro-life leaders aren’t exactly echoing Bennett. Douglas Johnson, the influential lobbyist for the National Right to Life Committee, opposes any offer of compromise. “We’ve gotten behind enemy lines and we’re blowing up ammo dumps,” he says. “Why should we voluntarily return to the beach?” But Rep. Henry Hyde, the leading pro-lifer in Congress, is open to talks. “I’m not as enthusiastic as Bill Bennett, but I concede [the Daschle bill] is a gain and a plus” for the pro-life side, Hyde says. “It may be the basis for further discussions.” Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who deftly managed the partial-birth bill in the Senate, says he’s “open to working with anyone . . . to look at other ways we can get at these very prickly [abortion] issues.” On the Senate floor on May 15, Santorum said he believes Daschle is sincere about curbing abortion.
What’s obvious is that the center of gravity in the abortion debate has shifted, even if only slightly. Though pro-choice, Daschle sounded like a pro- lifer in promoting his bill. “That is moral and linguistic progress,” says Bennett. “It shows the moral high ground of the pro-life movement has had some impact.” Republican strategist Jeffrey Bell says many liberal legislators “no longer believe it’s tenable to defend late-term abortions. This is a very significant political development.” And it’s evidence that Johnson and National Right to Life were right to put a spotlight on the horror of partial-birth abortion. “It’s making people question abortion,” says Bell.
The partial-birth issue has terrified many pro-choice members of Congress. Santorum has a simple explanation of why it has caught on: “You can see the baby.” In a partial-birth abortion, all but the baby’s head emerges from the womb. Then the baby is killed by having its skull pierced and its brain sucked out. Democratic senator Daniel P. Moynihan of New York, who is pro- choice, has called the procedure infanticide. Last fall, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake advised pro-choice candidates not to talk about the baby in partial-birth cases. “Voters believe that this procedure, no matter what we call it, kills an infant,” Lake said in a memo. “We cannot get around this basic belief.” TV ads attacking partial-birth proved effective in several campaigns, nearly causing the defeat of Democratic senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. Thus, Clinton, Daschle, and many pro-choice members of Congress might agree to a new Daschle bill, with the exceptions to a general ban on post-viability abortions made airtight and real teeth added to enforcement. Daschle says he’d be willing to talk, but would never “compromise on the issue of health.”
At the White House, the prevailing view is that it’s pro-lifers, not Clinton, who won’t compromise. “They ought to recognize there’s a broad middle-of-the-road consensus on restricting late-term abortions,” says press secretary Mike McCurry. “If they wanted to move policy to where the consensus is, they would pocket a victory” by accepting the Daschle bill. Actually, Clinton may be the biggest impediment to a deal. For one thing, he’s as distrusted as ever by the pro-life community. A year ago, he personally drafted a letter to the current and past presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention on partial-birth, insisting his position had been misunderstood. This May 12, the Baptists quoted back to him his words endorsing only the narrowest of exceptions. They said he has adopted “a position that betrays the emphatic assurance you gave us in your letter.”
There’s a bigger problem at the White House. When the never-released letter to Daschle was being prepared, a full-blown legal debate broke out. Justice Department lawyers asserted the Daschle bill was an unconstitutional encroachment on Roe v. Wade. After days of squabbling, the White House counsel’s office overruled Justice and decided to go along with Daschle. But even that “was not a unanimous verdict,” says a presidential aide, and a qualifying phrase was planted in the letter, saying the endorsement was ” subject to the expected judicial scrutiny.” This means getting Clinton’s approval of a stronger, better Daschle bill would be difficult. Not impossible, though.
Executive editor Fred Barnes appears weekly on Fox on Politics on the Fox News Channel.
