THE PROPOSED BAN ON “PARTIAI. BIRTH” abor- tions-passed by the Senate in December and scheduled for a final House vote the week of March 25 — is the work of one of Washington’s least well-known but most influential lobbyists. Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, has had a guiding hand in pro-life strategy for over a decade. “You have to have him in the room,” says family-values activist Gary Bauer, “whether you’re trying to block the other side or move the ball down the field.”
Johnson commands enormous respect on Capitol Hill. When congressional aides talk about him, they use words not usually ascribed to lobbyists — “honest,” “thorough, … trustworthy, … scrupulous,” and “composed.” He also has an unrivaled knowledge of congressional voting records on abortion-related issues. Even a seasoned legislator like Bob Dole has consulted Johnson on parliamentary tactics. But what really sets him apart from the herd of workaday lobbyists is the passionate conviction he brings to his job. “We feel that to the extent any of our efforts prevent a small number of abortions, we have been successful,” says Johnson. The father of four children, three of them adopted, he struggles to prevent his job from becoming all-consuming, but fellow activists and journalists know they can expect calls from him at all hours, any day of the week, to discuss abortion politics.
This devotion may finally be paying off, with pro- life Republicans controlling Congress. For most of his 15 years in Washington, the 45-year-old Johnson has been beating back congressional efforts to liberalize abortion laws and answering critics who label pro-lifers “extremists.”
The low point came with the election of Bill Clinon. On his third day in offce, he issued five executive directives sought by abortion supporters: lifting the ban on foreign aid to groups that promote abortion, ending the gag rule on abortion referrals by publicly funded family planning clinics, expediting entry of RU486 into the United States, making abortion avail- able at U.S. military hospitals, and providing federal funds for research using fetal tissue from abortions. Before long, the administration was working with congressional Democrats to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which would enshrine unrestricted abortion in federal law.
But the pro-choice forces overreached, and Johnson was there to stymie them. Among the practices that would be protected if the Freedom of Choice Act passed was partial-birth abortion. This procedure was unknown in pro4ife circles until September 1992, when an Ohio doctor, Martin Haskell, presented a paper to a National Abortion Federation conference. Haskell described what he called “Dilation and Extraction,” which he said he had used over 700 times on women who were 20-26 weeks pregnant. As he explained it, when the baby ‘s body has been extracted from the mother and only its head remains unborn, the surgeon “forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered Douglas Johnson the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into his hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.”
Johnson seized on Haskell ‘s paper as a mobilizing tool. In early 1993, he passed a copy to Rep. Charles Canady of Florida, who introduced an amendment to the Freedom of Choice Act banning Haskell ‘s procedure. Johnson persuaded numerous moderately prochoice House members to insist they couldn ‘t support the bill if it protected partial-birth abortion. The National Right to Life Committee distributed 6 million copies of Haskell ‘s paper. When House Democrats refused to allow any modification to the Freedom of Choice Act, support weakened, and the bill never reached the House floor. In the end, it was Johnson’s skill that prevented this or any other major pro-choice legislation from passing in 1993-94, despite Democratic control of both Congress and the White House and media hostility to the pro-life cause. “We emerged with some wounds, “says Johnson, “but none of them mortal.”
In the 1994 elections, 34 pro-choice House Democrats were unseated, and many on both sides of the issue expected a broad legislative push to restrict abortion. But Johnson and other pro-lifers decided to concentrate their efforts on banning partial-birth abortions even though they comprise less than 0.1 percent of the abortions performed each year. Not all anti-abortion groups agreed. “I don ‘t understand the strategy of introducing the partial- birth abortion legislation, “says Judie Brown, president of the 300,000- member American Life League. Brown preferred to pursue Rep. Bob Dornan ‘s Right to Life Act, which would nullify state and federal laws permitting abortion.
Johnson and some other prolife activists believe there are limits to what can be achieved through legislation. What is needed, they say, is a public education campaign against abortion. Highlighting the most grisly abortion procedures is meant not only to advance a limited legislative objective but also to raise awareness. “The partial-birth abortion bill is a sincere effort to save lives, “says Johnson. “It is also designed to illustrate the abysmal state of protection for innocent human life and to demonstrate the abject captivity of the Clinton administration … to the abortion-on-demand advocacy groups.”
During the congressional debate on the bill last year, the National Right to Life Committee took out a series of graphic advertisements in papers like the New York Times and the Iashington Post (the ad also appeared in this magazine ). The ads depicted exactly what happens to the unborn child in a partial-birth abortion. When Canady displayed the illustrations on the House floor, a group of pro-choice House Democrats forced a vote trying to block the display. They lost, and they seem to be losing the public-relations battle, too. A December Tarrance poll found 71 percent support for banning partial-birth abortion.
In the short term, though, pro-choicers will win the fight. Clinton has vowed to veto the legislation, and pro-lifers lack the votes to override. This disappoints Johnson, but he sees a silver lining: “The veto underscores what is at stake in the 1996 election.”
A little more than four years ago, he wrote in the National Right to Life News that the “horror story for 1992” would be the defeat of the staunchly pro-life George Bush. Johnson is working on an update of that article. Its title — “Horror Story for 1996 : Clinton Reelected” — is still tentative.
by Matthew Rees
