ABORTION ISSUE WILL HURT DEMOCRATS IN CAMPAIGN

During their recent convention, the Democrats dropped the ball on one issue more than any other. Probably more than in any other presidential election, the candidates' views on the volatile issue of abortion will directly affect their electability.

Democrats apparently realize this. Their mistake is that they're appealing to the wrong side of the debate. To be fair, not all Democrats share a staunch pro-choice view. One in particular, Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, has said that for the Democrats to be the party of abortion-on-demand is to be on the losing side of the issue.

But, of course the governor wasn't allowed to speak at the convention. He was snubbed in lieu of six pro-abortion GOP women. Imagine it: Party leaders allowed six Republicans to speak at their convention simply because they share the Democratic platform on one issue, while they ignored the counsel of one of their own. And this at the convention of a supposedly "moderate" candidate.

It's difficult to think of Clinton's stance on abortion as mainstream. It's the Democratic Party, after all, that's pushing for a Freedom of Choice Constitutional Amendment removing any restrictions on abortion. The party also calls for taxpayer funding for abortions.

But the pollsters tell us that a majority of Americans favor such restrictions. A recent poll by Ladies' Home Journal found that 52 percent of the nearly 28,000 respondents thought abortion should either never be allowed or allowed only in the cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is endangered. Another 16 percent said abortion should be allowed only in the first three months of pregnancy indicating opposition to "abortion-on-demand" with no consideration for the unborn child.

Of five possible answers to the question "Should abortion be allowed...," 36 percent of those polled responded "never," while only 23 percent said abortion should be allowed in all cases the position espoused by the core of the Democratic party.

It's also interesting to note that 73 percent of those polled answered "yes" to, "Would you vote for a presidential candidate based solely on his position on abortion?"

With 52 percent of those same respondents favoring restrictions on more than 90 percent of the abortions performed results that match similar polls taken in the past year Clinton and the Democrats seem to be out of touch with most Americans.

Instead, they support a Freedom of Choice Act and constitutional amendment, which would go far beyond the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling of 1973. Unlike Roe v. Wade, the constitutional amendment essentially would prohibit states from imposing any restrictions on abortion. That would please the feminists to no end, but would it also please the American people?

The record of a former local abortionist who's being scrutinized by Missouri's Administrative Hearing Commission, helps to underscore the flimsiness of one of the most common claims by the "pro-choice" crowd. The complaint against Dr. Scott Barrett Jr., who performed abortions at Cape Girardeau's now-closed Women's Health Center, was lodged by Missouri's Board for the Healing Arts. The court document makes for some interesting reading.

One of the items included in the board's preliminary statements is noteworthy: "An abortion is a potentially life-threatening procedure for the patient. It presents a substantial risk to the patient's health," the board's complaint read.

Pro-abortion folks love to rant about the horrors of "back alley" abortions that would result if pro-lifers had their way, without allusion to the dangers of the procedure when performed by qualified doctors.

Examine the alleged actions of just one doctor who performed abortions legally on hundreds, maybe thousands of women over the course of six years.

The eight-count complaint against Barrett includes charges of negligence and misconduct in abortions he performed on four women. In all but one of the cases, the women likely would have died as a result of the abortionist's incompetence and negligence if not for the efforts of emergency and hospital personnel. The exception: Stacy Ruckman, 23, of rural Springfield. She died Feb. 20, 1988, after Barrett performed an abortion in which he apparently administered excessive doses of a local anesthetic and then failed to properly resuscitate Ruckman.

Another case involved a young woman who had an abortion at Barrett's Springfield clinic. The board's complaint includes a graphic and shocking description of her treatment following what Barrett described in his notes as an "uneventful" procedure.

"After losing consciousness, B.J. awoke in a recovery room, seated in a chair. She was wearing only a shirt, which was drenched with blood. The lower portion of her body, especially around the hips, was also covered with blood. No clinic staff members were in the room."

The woman nearly died while one of Barrett's staff members transported B.J. in her own car to a local hospital, where emergency personnel were able to save her life.

No coat hangers. No back alleys. Just your neighborhood "women's clinic."

What's as shocking as the details of the complaint is that the board was quoted by the Associated Press as saying they're uncertain whether or not Barrett continues to practice medicine in Missouri.

Democrats apparently are unaware that most Americans find abortion distasteful. Even among those who favor abortion in certain instances, there's repulsion for the actual procedure.

Republicans need to recover the Democrats fumble on abortion and ignore the unfounded contention that a pro-life stance is political suicide. Bush should be comforted by the fact that a majority of voters favor restrictions on most abortions and make support for those restrictions a key part of his re-election bid.