ABORTION, CHOICE AND THE PARTIES; CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION FORCES DEBATE ON SPECIFICS

On today's Perspective, you will find three columns addressing the abortion rights issue from less-than-typical angles. The first column is written by Ann Stone, a Republican, who argues that her party's drive to make abortion illegal is not only politically foolish, but it is contrary to the basic idea of Republican philosophy, which usually stresses individual responsibility over governmental intrusion. Moreover, Stone charges that the Republican position, now stated, fails to address the main reason for abortions in this country: unwanted pregnancies.

The second column is by the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey. He too, believes that one of the parties is vulnerable because of its stance on abortion. Only, he believes its his own. This piece is also interesting because Casey was not allowed to express similar ideas at the Democratic convention two weeks ago. The reason: Bill Clinton and the Democratic platform committee did not want the spectacle of a high-profile party member disagreeing with them on this most important and emotionally-charged issue.

As background, then, I believe it is important that you know before reading his piece that Casey is one of the most popular vote-getters in the Democratic party. He won his second and current term with 68 percent of the Pennsylvania vote, carrying 66 out of 67 counties. And had it not been for his political skills and fund-raising ability, Harris Wofford would not have defeated Richard Thornburgh for the U.S. Senate last year, thereby showing how vulnerable George Bush was.

Why was Casey specifically denied time at the Democratic convention? Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff writes: "Casey has what may be the best record of any governor on services to women and children. He is, in actual achievement, far more liberal than Cuomo or certainly Clinton. Casey might have been forgiven this liberalism even in this year of Democratic white bread but Casey is a pro-lifer." For this reason alone, "Casey was muzzled."

The third column on the Perspective Page is a personal piece from an Illinois woman, who believes "true reproductive rights have nothing to do with abortion." Instead, she believes they have to do with "equal male responsibility for family planning and child care...access to prenatal care, emotional and practical assistance, knowing the physical...risks of abortion, and safe, non-abortifacient contraceptives."

Her plea should resonate with both parties. It is honest and direct. And it highlights problems with the current debate, which too often focuses merely on the legality of abortion.

Many of you who have followed the Perspective Page will notice that today is the first time we have included non-area writers. The reason is simple. Abortion is a profoundly important issue: morally, politically and socially. And because of the election year, abortion rights are in debate more intensely than ever before. Today's Perspective columns are meant to offer you some different and important perspectives, which you may not have seen on television or elsewhere in the newspaper. Moreover, all three columns are informatively written.

One item I would like to address here more in-depth than they do in Perspective, however, is the Freedom of Choice Act. What is happening with this act, now before Congress, is highly instructive about today's debate on abortion.

The Freedom of Choice Act (S 25 and HR 25) is a bill before Congress that would codify the principles of "Roe v. Wade," while overturning the parts of "Planned Parenthood v. Casey (decided this summer)," which allows states to place certain restrictions on women seeking abortions. The act states:

"In general a state may not restrict the freedom of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability;

"A state may restrict the freedom of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability unless such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman."

The debate surrounding this legislation is instructive not only because it is forcing argument about the kinds of restrictions contained in "Casey" (like parental consent, a 24-hour waiting period and informed consent), but it is also forcing argument about issues like the use of public funds and facilities. This means that while some pro-life politicians can still argue for a total ban on abortions (a position which I agree with Ann Stone as being out of the mainstream), the Freedom of Choice Act is causing everyone else to more clearly define exactly where they stand.

The first consequence of such a forced debate is that the act has not breezed through committee like its Democratic authors originally intended. Not because of Republicans, who staunchly oppose it. Rather, it is dissension within the Democratic Party that has held it up.

Pro-choice Democrats, who have felt politically empowered because of polls indicating Americans overwhelmingly favor abortion rights, are now also having to confront polls that show Americans even more overwhelmingly do not want abortion-on-demand.

A June USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, for example, indicates that most Americans want states to regulate the procedure:

- 81 percent favor doctors being required to counsel on abortion alternatives; 16 percent oppose.

- 73 percent want a 24-hour waiting period; 23 percent are opposed.

- 71 percent back parental consent for women under age 18; 25 percent do not.

Look for Perspective to follow up on the Freedom of Choice Act sometime soon, depending on what happens in Congress. Stay tuned.