OP-ED; Abortion extremism isn't voters' choice

Thomas M. Kene, Jr.
801 words
29 March 2002
Boston Herald
All Editions
023
English
(Copyright 2002)

In politics, abortion is less an issue of morals than it is of tactics, a tool of attack that surprisingly can backfire.

When acting Gov. Jane Swift bowed out of the gubernatorial race last week, giving Belmont's Mitt Romney a clear path to the Republican nomination, the Democratic knives came out quickly. Romney had identified himself as pro-choice in his 1994 race against Sen. Ted Kennedy. But in conservative Utah, the charge went, he had flip-flopped, denying in a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune that he was pro-choice. Those, Democrats said, were his true colors: a pro- lifer in pro-choice clothing.

And just this week came Round 2: state Treasurer Shannon O'Brien, currently leading the polls for the Democratic nomination, had begun her career in 1986 as a pro-lifer. No more. O'Brien says her position has evolved. Now she is "passionate about making sure that a woman has a right to control her body."

(Note to the confused: In Massachusetts, Republicans FLIP-FLOP. Democrats EVOLVE.)

Why the intense focus on abortion rights? The conventional wisdom is that abortion is a single-issue litmus test that determines who gets a voter's ballot. And Massachusetts, goes the belief, is overwhelmingly pro-choice.

Thus, the theory goes, paint Romney as pro-life and his stratospheric popularity will tumble. Paint O'Brien as equivocal on abortion rights and her four challengers - all of whom are leaping to proclaim their purity on the issue - benefit.

The problem with all of this is that the conventional wisdom may not be true. Abortion is not as effective a wedge issue as politicians think. It's a factor, to be sure, but it's a make-or- break issue for only a small percentage of extremists.

Take U.S. Rep. Steve Lynch (D-South Boston).

In September, Lynch - then a state senator - ran in the Democratic primary to succeed the late John Joseph Moakley in Congress. Polling showed that district voters were pro-choice by more than 3-1. Two of the other principal candidates - state Sens. Cheryl Jacques and Brian Joyce - were both pro-choice. Jacques had always been so; Joyce, originally elected on a pro-life platform, "evolved."

Like Joyce, Lynch too had been pro-life. The smart thing for Lynch, of course, would have been to "evolve" as well. But he refused. "This is who I am," he said. Backers of the other two candidates vilified Lynch, warning of dire consequences should he prevail. Abortion became almost a singular focus of the race. The National Abortion Rights Action League made large media buys attacking Lynch.

Yet Lynch ended up winning handily. Exit polls suggested that the decisive factor was not abortion but rather a more general sense that Lynch was more in tune with voters' day-to-day lives.

What happened? The truth is that the vast majority of voters are deeply ambivalent about abortion. Although the numbers vary depending on the question, it appears that between 50 percent and 60 percent of adults identify themselves as pro-choice. Yet clear majorities also say they personally believe abortion to be wrong. It's a seeming inconsistency that in part is due to our nomenclature: Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. To most, "choice" comes down to whether government should prohibit or criminalize abortion. People don't like that idea.

Nevertheless, most express deep ambivalence about abortion, seeing it, at best, as a decision fraught with moral consequence. They are, in a sense, simultaneously pro-choice and anti-abortion.

If Lynch had campaigned on a platform of jailing those who get or provide abortions, he probably would have lost. But Lynch's pro- life position can be read, in a sense, as a pro-choice position as well. He opposes abortion but made it clear he wasn't out to overturn ROE VS. WADE. And a fair reading of Romney's statements since 1994 suggests he holds the same position:

"Abortion is the wrong choice," he told the Utah papers. "But under the law, it is a choice people have."

All of which suggests that while abortion may be a convenient wedge issue, its complexity means it doesn't play well on election day. In the congressional election, Jacques in particular was aggressive in pushing her abortion-rights credentials. Instead of looking like she was pro-choice, she increasingly looked to be pro- abortion, a posture that appealed to few.

Lynch instead focused on the bread-and-butter issues of everyday voters. He won. It's a lesson this season's candidates should ponder.

Tom Keane can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com

Graphic: REP. LYNCH: He overcame conventional wisdom.

Document bhld000020020329dy3t0007e