VICTORY '92: Hope & Cautious Optimism
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
VICTORY Ô92: Hope & Cautious Optimism By Susan Kowal Governor Clinton has carried OhioÕs 21 electoral votes. ThatÕs enough to win the presidency. . ." After twelve years of anti-choice Reagan-Bush policies, freedom of choice had triumphed. Pro-choice Americans voiced their commitment to reproductive freedom with their votes. A pro-choice position proved the winning edge for many candidates running in tight races. An LA Times exit poll showed that the abortion issue affected the outcome of the California Senate races more than any other issue, while The New York Times reported that one in three voters was influenced by concerns over future Supreme Court nominations. In 1992 a womanÕs right to choose played a vital role in how voters cast their ballots. In California no pro-choice incumbent lost to an anti-choice challenger. Our pro-choice margin in the State Assembly grew by 4 seats, while our pro-choice Congressional delegation increased from 28 to 33. Ten of the thirteen ÒChampions of ChoiceÓ candidates backed by CARAL-PAC won their races, while 12 of the 16 ÒEnemies of ChoiceÓ were defeated. CARAL played an especially important role in the days before the election, making 20,000 Òget out the voteÓ calls, and sending out over 1 million pieces of direct mail. On the national level, in addition to gaining a pro-choice president in the White House, supporters of choice had a net increase of 11 seats in the House, one seat in the Senate, and one governor in Missouri, where Mel Carnahan defeated anti-choice Attorney General William Webster. The outcome of the Carnahan-Webster race was an especially sweet pro-choice victory. Webster's name is synonomous with the erosion of choice as the plaintiff in the 1989 Supreme Court caseWebster v. Reproductive Health Services, which opened the door to over 600 pieces of anti-choice state legislation nationwide. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein from California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Carol Mosely Braun of Illinois, Patty Murray of Washington and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado are the freshman Senators who will solidify pro-choice leadership in the Senate. State initiatives also reflected the pro-choice mood: a ballot measure in Arizona that would have virtually banned abortions was resoundingly rejected, while in Maryland 61% of voters confirmed the principles of Roe v. Wade by codifying it into law. In the words of Cynthia Carey-Grant, Political Director for CARAL-North, ÒThe victories couldnÕt have been more spectacular.Ó Choice and CARAL Winners in California In California, candidates endorsed by CARAL-PAC won 91 of 152 races. CARAL and NARAL contacted more than one million Democrats, Republicans and Independents who defined themselves as pro-choice in the week before the election. Moderate Republicans suffered from the partyÕs anti-choice connections during this election, but more pro-choice Republican candidates were elected to office in California than ever before. On the Congressional level CARAL triumphed with the victories of Vic Fazio and Dan Hamburg in the north and Tony Beilenson, Jane Harmon, Howard Berman and George Brown, Jr. in the south. Despite losses in several important congressional races, overall "CARAL was a winner,"according to CALPEEK, an influential state political newsletter. The Presidency Was The Prize The strong anti-choice platform adopted by the Republican party at its national convention translated into crossover votes from alienated moderates. The partyÕs policy over the last twelve years of catering to the anti-choice minority cost it dearly in a year when 72% of voters defined themselves as pro-choice. The Democratic Party made strong inroads into Republican strongholds, pulling in ÒClinton RepublicansÓ for whom choice was a primary factor in their defection. Women were a significant force in determining the outcome of the election, with more than half of womenÕs votes going to Clinton. ÒWhat happened in these elections will set the tone for a major transition in the national agenda,Ó says Carey-Grant. ÒAfter three elections that didnÕt move on the choice issue, what is happening now will dictate what the next century will be like.Ó Among the most dramatic changes certain to result from this yearÕs presidential election is a fundamental shift in the federal governmentÕs approach to issues of reproductive rights and health. The election of Bill Clinton promises an end to the extreme anti-choice policies of the last twelve years and makes possible the restoration of federal protection for a womanÕs freedom to choose abortion. Clinton Pledges to Lift Gag Rule At president-elect ClintonÕs first press conference after the election he reiterated his intention to reverse the gag rule early in his administration. The onerous gag rule went into effect October 1 but is currently stalled in the courts. Clinton is committed to protecting a womanÕs right to choose and his appointments to the Supreme Court and other Federal courts are certain to reflect that stance. There is renewed hope that the ban on importation of RU-486 may be lifted, and that funding for the exploration of new health care technology will increase. In addition, there is no longer the spectre of a veto of the Freedom of Choice Act. A Future of Hope and Cautious Optimism The stunning victories achieved by CARAL and other pro-choice activists in the 1992 elections will alleviate some of the immediate dangers to reproductive freedom. Energy will not have to be exhausted fighting anti-choice Presidential policies. Government tolerance of clinic harassment and violence should decline. There is a new mood in the country and a new set of expectations. The watchword is change. But what kind of change can pro-choice activists expect? Will the twelve year legacy of repressive Reagan-Bush policies be reversed? Are new policies affecting women and their reproductive health likely to receive serious consideration? Or, are womenÕs issues, and particularly the right to abortion, going to be less important now that the nationÕs focus has shifted to the economy, health care reform and education? Will choice be a political slogan but still not a reality? In the Õ92 election, choice provided the winning margin in races from the state house to the White House, but as Carey-Grant points out, Òchoice alone will not win elections.Ó Jamienne Studley, CARAL-NorthÕs Executive Director, adds, ÒWith the legal right to choose secure, at least on paper, we can concentrate on increasing access for all women and on contraceptive options, sex education and policies that would make abortion less necessary." While celebrating the victory, Studley still cautions: ÒWe cannot become complacent, as we did after Roe v. Wade. We must make sure that the pro-choice majority in the state legislature resists proposals to chip away at the fundamental right to choose.Ó Twelve years of anti-choice policies have crippled Roe v. Wade, with 83% of United States counties having no available abortion facilities. Well-funded anti-choice forces find themselves in the position that pro-choice activists occupied 12 years ago. As legislative avenues narrow, new and harsher anti-choice strategies and tactics will flourish. The issue, however, will no longer be defined using the terms of the anti-choice movement. Nevertheless, we were reminded of the tenuous reality of reproductive freedom for many women by the Supreme CourtÕs recent decision not to hear an appeal of Barnes v. Moore. The courtÕs refusal to hear the case allowed Mississippi to enforce a 1991 law that imposed anti-choice restrictions. The focus must continue to be the fundamental question of ÒWho decides?Ó The answer remains: each woman, not her government.