Annual pro-life rallies occurring in climate changed by election

NEW YORK -- Pro-life activists are girding for their annual marches and rallies marking the anniversary of the court decision legalizing abortion, in a political climate transformed by elections that empowered their pro-choice adversaries.

In contrast to recent years, when participants at the March for Life in Washington urged the Republican-controlled Congress to expand fetal rights and restrict abortions, activists are now discussing defensive strategies in the face of the Democratic takeover.

"Christ said we must be as clever as serpents and harmless as doves," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the conservative National Clergy Council. "With pro-choice leaders in the House and Senate, we may need to be downright snakey."

Schenck is helping organize a pro-lfie worship service at a Senate office building just before Monday's March for Life, which will mark the 34th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision establishing a nationwide right to abortion.

Events elsewhere include a Walk for Life in San Francisco and a protest in Wichita, Kan., targeting a clinic where late-term abortions are performed. Pro-choice activists also will be energized, holding a vigil at the U.S. Supreme Court and presenting political leaders with a petition signed by thousands of women declaring they had abortions.

"I feel the wind is at our back, for the first time in years," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation and a driving force behind Ms. magazine's "I had an Abortion" petition drive.

On the other side, Kimberly Zenarolla of the National Pro-Life Action Center predicted pro-life marchers will be more motivated than ever this year because of the election results.

"It's serving to unite the pro-life effort more," she said. "They see a need to stand up."

In Congress, any anti-abortion measures are likely to be blocked by the new leadership. Democrats instead will push a "Prevention First" initiative intended to reduce abortions by improving family-planning services, requiring insurance companies to cover birth control, and requiring federally funded sex education programs to provide accurate information on contraceptives.

"One election cycle doesn't change everything. ... but I think we'll see more prevention legislation get through," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The Democrats, however, would need some Republican support to overcome possible vetoes by President Bush, and some relatively conservative Democrats who won seats in November will be wooed by anti-abortion groups. Some anti-abortion leaders believe there can be common cause on pushing for paid maternity leave as a step to dissuade pregnant women from seeking abortions.

Perhaps more so than Congress, state legislatures remain battlegrounds, with some states tightening access to abortion and contraceptives while others broaden it.

On Friday, NARAL released its latest state-by-state rankings on those issues, giving As to 13 states and F's to 19 states. From an abortion-rights standpoint, the highest grades went to California and Washington state; the lowest to Louisiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

In the November election, abortion-rights supporters prevailed in defeating three state ballot measures -- a sweeping ban on abortions in South Dakota and parental-notification measures in Oregon and California.

In several states, including Oklahoma and Texas, conservatives are pushing new bills that would outlaw abortion in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned. But the appetite for such measures is limited; GOP leaders in Georgia's legislature have not embraced a proposed abortion ban there, and many South Dakota lawmakers have expressed wariness of revisiting the abortion debate.

"There's an awful lot of fatigue out there about controversial social issues," said South Dakota's Senate Democratic leader, Scott Heidepriem.

The federal election eased abortion-rights groups' concerns about the prospect of the Supreme Court overturning Roe; they hope the Democratic-controlled Senate could ensure that any high court vacancy over the next two years would be filled by a supporter of the 1973 ruling.

However, the court is being closely watched for another reason -- it is expected to rule within a few months on whether Congress was within its rights to ban a procedure referred to by opponents as partial-birth abortion.

A law signed by Bush in 2003 denounces the procedure as gruesome and never medically necessary. Supporters argue that such abortions sometimes are the safest alternative, and object to the ban in part because it makes no exceptions for the sake of a woman's health.

Though only a few thousand such abortions take place annually, out of more than 1.2 million nationwide, the ruling is anxiously awaited by rival advocacy groups. It will be the first major abortion ruling by the court since Bush appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito joined it.

A ruling upholding the ban "would be a very big step back," Smeal said.