Pro-Life Movement Should Adjust Attitudes, Not Laws

PLEASE ask yourself this question: What did the Roe v. Wade decision mean for America?

But before you answer it, set aside your personal feelings about abortion.

That is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Clinton's nominee for the Supreme Court, did during a recent speech on the Roe v. Wade decision at New York University. Her candid reflections on the political consequences of Roe have nettled some abortion-rights activists, but they also speak well of the judge's intellectual honesty. After all, only a liberal with secure convictions and a judicious temperament would speak her mind knowing that her views coincide, if only briefly, with those of Robert Bork, America's most eminent conservative legal scholar.

"Roe v. Wade," Ginsburg said, ". . . invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators' court.

"Suppose the court . . . had not gone on . . . to fashion a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force? Would there have been the 20-year controversy we have witnessed? A less-encompassing Roe, I believe, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy."

Bork reaches the same conclusion Ginsburg does on the political fallout from the decision. But he would have struck down Roe while Ginsburg would have modified it.

Both have noted that states had already been liberalizing their laws at the time of the decision to reflect the changing values of the people. We saw it firsthand here in 1970 when the voters passed Referendum 20.

But Roe v. Wade ran a buzzsaw through these laws in 1973, making the democratic process in each state moot. And that is why abortion has become a divisive national issue. There are plenty of hot social issues such as the death penalty and the right-to-die issue, but they don't divide America because they are settled mostly within the province of each state. Abortion has become a flashpoint for national controversy precisely because it was lifted from the states. It has turned Supreme Court confirmation hearings into travesties of character assassination. It has split the Republican party over the issue of legalization. And it soon will split Democrats in Congress over the issue of permissiveness, as the abortion-rights lobby begins its push for a radical abortion-on-demand bill.

While Judge Ginsburg's speech has prompted speculation about what her presence on the Supreme Court will mean, the fact is her appointment will have little impact on abortion policy in America.

The Supreme Court - where, interestingly, eight of the nine justices have been appointed by Republican presidents - has made it clear that it will not allow states to deny women the fundamental right to obtain an abortion. The court will allow states to regulate and restrict that right as long as undue hardships are not imposed. Ginsburg would join the court's moderate justices, including David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor, in upholding that standard. That means, simply, that the abortion wars are over. All that is left to fight are border skirmishes over the point at which an abortion can he obtained, whether a teenager needs her parents permission, or whether someone who demands the right to an abortion can send the bill for it to taxpayers.

But suppose Roe were overturned? Pro-choice activists have warned that the right to obtain an abortion would be endangered here if that happened.

Well, let's suppose it did. And, just to make it interesting, let's pretend we had a pro-life Governor, which we haven't had in 30 years. What would happen?

Probably nothing. If the Legislature were controlled by Democrats it would be strongly pro-choice. But even if the Republicans were in control, they would avoid passing pro-life legislation for fear that it would split their ranks and hand the Democrats an issue. Republicans held control of the state Senate from the late 80s until last year. They ignored the issue, deliberately. Whenever pro-life legislation is introduced in the state capitol it receives passionate but minimal support.

That puts the pro-life movement in a pickle. They can't change Roe and even if they could, they can't change the law. So what can they change?

People's attitudes. Instead of legally prohibiting abortion, which is impossible, the focus should be on socially discouraging it. The positive approach works best, as we've seen in the Robert Wood Foundation television commercials ("Life - What a Beautiful Choice"), which affirms the pro-life movement's greatest strength.

Another organization, Focus on The Family, purchases newspaper ads ("In Defense of a Little Virginity") aimed at discouraging casual attitudes toward casual sex. Other pro-life supporters have set up organizations to counsel, support and assist young women in bringing their children to term.

In acting on their beliefs, one person at a time, the pro-life movement works to its greatest strength and will gain greater public support. That is where meaningful change can most effectively be brought about. And that is how the most babies can be saved.

KIRO commentator John Carlson is president of the Bellevue-based Washington Institute for Policy Studies. His column appears Tuesday on editorial pages of The Times.