When Harry Met Roe [Reid is not pro-life]

JOE KLEIN, WRITING IN Time, says Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is "pro-life." The New York Times quotes Washington lobbyist Frank Fahrenkopf, the former Republican national chairman, as saying about Reid, "He's pro-life." In the Washington Post, after Reid was elevated to his leadership post, columnist E.J. Dionne labeled him "an opponent of abortion rights." And as far back as 1997, Post political writer David Broder wrote that Reid is "pro-life." So it's all but unanimous in the press that the Nevada senator is a serious foe of legalized abortion.

But is he really? As commonly applied, the term "pro-life" refers to someone who actively works to ban abortion or at least to reduce substantially the number of abortions. We know Reid's personal view. It's that abortion should be allowed only in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is at stake. But that alone doesn't make him a pro-lifer. After all, there are political figures like Senators John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy who insist they frown on abortion but favor keeping it legal in all or almost all cases. No one considers Kerry or Kennedy to be pro-life. Is Reid the same? He has used the same language as Kennedy ("I am personally opposed to abortion") in letters to constituents.

I've devised a straightforward, three-pronged test for whether a politician or national leader should legitimately be called pro-life. First, does the person speak out publicly against abortion or for related pro-life causes? Second, does the person participate vigorously in

efforts to protect the unborn or, if a legislator, at least vote to do so? Third, do pro-life forces see the person as an ally or do pro-abortion lobbyists look kindly on the person? To be a pro-lifer a person wouldn't necessarily have to pass all three parts, but two out of three would seem to be the minimum required to be considered an authentic pro-lifer. Let's see how Reid fares.

Reid hasn't been exactly full-throated in opposition to abortion. His press secretary, Tessa Hafen, says he "has spoken out" often, but she cites only his December 5 appearance on Meet the Press. Host Tim Russert asked Reid if he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. The standard pro-life response is yes. Reid didn't answer one way or the other. Russert asked twice and Reid ducked both times. He said the Supreme Court "has wrestled with this for years and years. And, as you know, they're having a difficult time coming up with what should or shouldn't be done." Actually, the court decided in Roe v. Wade to create a right to an abortion and later reaffirmed that decision.

Still, Reid said his "views on abortion are very clear. I've never tried to hide them." He said this immediately before hiding his view on reversing Roe v. Wade. Reid added, "I clearly oppose abortion." And he made a case for working "toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, unintended pregnancies. . . . That would, of course, lead to fewer abortions. That should be a goal we all have." Oddly, while talking about abortion, Reid said Senator Barbara Boxer of California is the closest thing he's ever had to a sister. Boxer is passionately pro-abortion. I think the only fair verdict on Reid as a pro-life spokesman is that he isn't one.

Rest of article:

Reid's reputation as an opponent of abortion rests partly on votes in 1999 and 2003 against the Harkin amendment, which endorsed Roe v. Wade. Today, Reid is the only remaining Democratic senator who voted no both times. He also voted for a ban on partial-birth abortion and for a bill making the killer of a pregnant woman guilty of two murders--one for the woman's life and one for the unborn child's. Those votes bolster Reid's pro-life credentials.

But there's more to the story. The Harkin resolution was merely an expression of Senate sentiment. It wasn't binding. On partial-birth abortion, Reid voted initially for a substitute bill that would have gutted the ban. And on the two-victims legislation, he demonstrably backed a measure proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California that would have done just the opposite, codified that only one victim was involved. Reid and then-Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle ostentatiously cast the first two votes for the Feinstein bill. It lost by one vote.

After President Bush reinstated the so-called Mexico City policy which bars funds from overseas organizations that perform or promote abortions, Reid moved to block the president's action. His amendment was never enacted. Reid also supported attempts to revive American funds for the United Nations Population Fund, some of whose money aids coercive abortions in China. These attempts to stymie the pro-life efforts failed. So what's the bottom line on Reid as a reliable legislative battler on behalf of the unborn? He's not one.

Finally, there's the matter of Reid's allies

and opponents on abortion. Klein quotes Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL Pro-Choice America, as saying of Reid, "I'm honored to be his friend." When Reid ran for Democratic leader, neither NARAL nor Planned Parenthood voiced a peep of opposition. And WeNews, an online publication for women, concluded Reid's ascension wouldn't affect the strong pro-abortion position of Senate Democrats. Meanwhile, Douglas Johnson, the chief lobbyist for National Right to Life, said Reid "is certainly no ally of the pro-life movement. He usually votes against pro-life interests when it matters most." Thus, Reid turns out to be, again, closer to the pro-abortion side than the pro-life.

In 1985, when Reid was a House member, he published a newspaper ad citing ten antiabortion votes he'd made. Better yet, the ad included an endorsement by Republican Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, the leading pro-life spokesman on Capitol Hill. Reid, Hyde said, "has never failed to support . . . the issues that concern the family and the pre-born." A decade later, Reid had found wiggle room on abortion. He'd come up with a different take.

Voters in Reid's home state approved a referendum in 1990 making Roe v. Wade the law in Nevada. "I respect that decision and believe it should only be changed by another vote of the people of Nevada," Reid wrote constituents a few years later. "I will review all proposed abortion legislation with this perspective." And so he has. A real pro-lifer wouldn't have.

Third, do pro-life forces see the person as an ally or do pro-abortion lobbyists look kindly on the person?

Not always a good indication. There was a case a couple of years ago of a vote on somatic cell nuclear transplantation that came up in the Kentucky legislature. National Right to Life said that a "yes" vote was not in direct opposition to their standards. Kentucky Right to Life, however, decided that a "yes" vote was a bad vote.

Several Republican legislators that, under any other circumstance could never be considered pro-choice, voted for the bill. The Kentucky Right to Life went after some of them unmercifully the next year, despite the fact that these legislators had always been staunch supporters of the Kentucky Right to Life's initiatives.

Pro-life citizen lobbyists . . . not always the sanest group.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.