I wrote recently about the false and misleading claims of pro-choice advocates like Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling regarding the so-called Stupak Amendment to the House health care bill.  The amendment, if enacted, would prohibit federal subsidies for insurance policies that cover abortion services.  Michelman, Kissling and others have claimed here that the legislation would prohibit any and all insurance policies from covering abortions, a claim that is simply false (New York Times, 11/12/09).

That all raises the question of why they're making these false claims about a bill that has been widely reported on.  In other words, why lie when the truth is so easily available?

Clearly enough, they're trying to demonstrate political influence.  The House bill passed with the Stupak amendment firmly attached.  Michelman, et al are trying to get pro-choice folks in a hot lather so they'll call congresspeople and senators and deep-six the abortion language in the final bill.  

Will it work?  My prediction is it won't.  In the first place, lying about the effects of a proposed bill isn't the best way of defeating it.  When your supporters find out the truth, it's a big let down.  But that's not the main reason why I think the abortion restrictions will survive.

Michelman and Kissling warn ominously,

The Democratic majority has abandoned its platform and subordinated women’s health to short-term political success. In doing so, these so-called friends of women’s rights have arguably done more to undermine reproductive rights than some of abortion’s staunchest foes.

They then throw down the gautlet. 

If Democrats do not commit themselves to defeating the amendment, then they will face an uncompromising effort by Democratic women to defeat them, regardless of the cost to the party’s precious majority.

But will they?  After all, the Democratic Party long ago made a clear political calculation to move away from abortion politics to court the "values voter."  That meant supporting candidates who were willing to separate themselves from no-compromise postions and embrace restrictions on abortion rights.  Having helped elect those candidates, it should come as no surprise that initiatives like the Stupak Amendment pass.

And the reason the party supported those soft-on-choice candidates is that it's paid no political price for doing so.  That was the calculation, and so far it's proved to be the right one.  Last month's poll by the Pew Research Center showed support for abortion rights at a 15-year low of 47%.

That could be an aberration, but beyond abstract notions of support for - or opposition to - abortion, the dynamics of voting in a two-party system militate in favor of Democrats' soft-peddling choice.  The simple fact is that, when a pro-chioce voter walks into the voting booth, he/she sees the name of a Democrat who may be less enthusiastic about abortion rights than the voter is.  But that voter also sees the name of a Republican who favors repeal of Roe v. Wade altogether. 

Given that there are no other parties with viable candidates, the pro-choice voter has little trouble making up his/her mind.  Ralph Nader can tell you all about that.  In 2000, polls immediately before election day had him garnering between 7% and 9% of the vote.  In fact it turned out to be 2.7%.  The polls weren't that far off; many people really did support Nader.  But when it came time to actually punch that card and help George Bush in the process, most of them just couldn't bring themselves to do it.

My guess is that the same will be true in November 2010.  The pro-choice voters that Michelman and Kissling are trying to stir up may well remember the Stupak Amendment when they walk into the voting booth.  But then they'll have to decide between the modestly pro-choice Democrat and the rabidly anti-choice Republican.

The Democrats are betting they know what decision those voters will make.  So far they've been right.  Abortion rights advocates are making a show of their political muscle, but I think the time has passed when they can do this type of heavy lifting.

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 14th, 2009 at 4:09 pm and is filed under Political Parties/Presidential Election/Major Elections. You can trackback from your own site.