file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1992: pln-0216.txt --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 2, No. 16 October, 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life Issues. Questions to readers and articles for submissions are strongly encouraged. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve (frezza@ee.pitt.edu). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) DID GORE FLIP-FLOP ON ABORTION From an "American Caucus" article by Julie Rovner Did Al Gore flip-flop on abortion? His staff says no, but his stance hasn't always been what it is today. Since winning election to the Senate in 1984, the Tennessee Democrat has been a steadfast supporter of abortion rights, prompting the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) to praise his selection as Bill Clinton's running mate. But during his House tenure (1977-85), Gore's abortion record was murkier. According to the National Right to Life Committee, Gore voted with abortion opponents more than 80% of the time. And his pronouncements at the time reflected that voting record. In a 1983 letter to a constituent, Gore wrote, "In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life. ... Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I have an open mind on how to further this goal." Gore aides dispute any suggestion that their boss has seriously altered his position. "Senator Gore has always supported a woman's right to choose," said Greg Simon, Gore's legislative director, although, "he has consistently, since day one, opposed federal funding except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother." But others have noticed the change. "Since he's been in the Senate, he's been fine," said Bill Hamilton, head of the Washington Office of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "But in the House, his record was considerably more mixed." A look at the record reveals a divergence between his House and Senate voting records on the issue. One explanation is that most of the abortion votes the House took during Gore's tenure were on funding questions, while most of those in the Senate have been on other matters. As a House member, Gore consistently voted against rape and incest exceptions for federal abortion funding. Simon noted that most of those amendments included language allowing federal funding for abortions needed for health reasons, which Gore did not support. In 1984, Gore voted for an amendment to a civil rights bill that would have defined "person" to include unborn children from the moment of conception. Simon said that, too, was consistent with Gore's position, since it would have had funding implications. But Gore has demonstrably flip-flopped on at least one abortion- related issue -- whether the District of Columbia should be allowed to use its own tax funds (not federal money) for abortions. In the Senate, Gore has consistently voted "yes" on that issue, but as a member of the House in 1980, he voted the other way. Simon described the 1980 vote as "an aberration." Gore's rhetoric has changed, too. At a June 25 press conference, Gore joined with more than two dozen Senate colleagues in endorsing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, which would bar by federal law most state abortion restrictions. "As others have said, the real question is not which choice a woman makes," Gore said. "The question is whether or not the woman will have the right to choose, or whether instead the government will decide that it knows best in every situation regardless of the circumstances." Description of Albert Gore's voting record courtesy (without permission) of _American Caucus_, ibid. PRESIDENTIAL SUPPORT: sided with the position of the President on a bill. PARTY UNITY: sides with a majority of voting Democrats opposing a majority of opposing Republicans. CONSERVATIVE COALITION: sided with position taken by coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans when a majority of them were opposed by a majority of non-Southern Democrats Scores from 1987 on have been adjusted for absences; for previous years, a failure to vote lowers the member's score. PRESIDENTIAL PARTY CONSERVATIVE SUPPORT UNITY COALITION Yr S O S O S O SENATE SERVICE: VOTING PERCENTAGES 1992* 28 72 94 6 24 76 1991 46 54 86 14 35 65 1990 38 62 93 7 41 59 1989 66 34 79 21 61 39 1988 53 47 93 7 24 76 1987 20 80 95 5 27 73 1986 29 71 83 17 33 67 1985 34 66 86 14 50 50 HOUSE SERVICE: VOTING PERCENTAGES 1984 46 45 69 22 56 34 1983 29 61 77 13 39 58 1982 45 52 89 11 47 53 1981 39 59 80 17 47 53 1980 77 22 85 15 46 54 1979 78 21 83 16 38 62 1978 68 28 75 21 30 66 1977 77 23 77 22 35 64 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) A HOOSIER ABORTION POLL INDIANAPOLIS (UPI) -- A survey of Indiana voters shows that the majority favor certain legal restrictions on abortion. The results of The Indianapolis Star poll found state voters supporting abortion rights by a small margin, 53 percent to 44 percent, up slightly from two years ago. The poll, conducted by the Gordon S. Black Corp., revealed that nearly four-fifths of those queried were in favor of restrictions such as a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, parental notification for minors, and a requirement that married women inform their husbands before receiving an abortion. More specifically, 38 percent said abortion decisions should always be left to the woman and her doctor, 15 percent said the decision should be made by the woman and her doctor only during the first three months of pregnancy, and 10 percent said abortions should not be allowed under any circumstances. Jonathan W. Siegel, a project director for the survey firm, said the results showed the complex feelings people have about abortion. ``I think the story (the figures) tell is two-fold,'' he said. ``This is a state that's still quite divided on the issue. And I think it may be the case, although I'm very equivocal on this, the state may be slightly moving in a pro-choice direction.'' Siegel said the voters who felt abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor, either always or in the first three months of pregnancy, were stereotypically ``pro-choice.'' Those opposing abortion, either altogether or with some exceptions, would be termed ``pro-life,'' he said. Two years ago, when the same questions were put to Hoosier voters, 49 percent took a ``pro-choice'' stance and 48 percent were ``pro-life,'' according to Siegel's definitions. Of the 801 voters polled: -- 80 percent said they would favor requiring girls under 18 to obtain a parent's permission before getting an abortion. Eighteen percent opposed the idea even though it is currently required by Indiana law. -- 80 percent also favored a 24-hour waiting period for women after their initial meeting with a doctor or nurse before receiving an abortion. It was opposed by 18 percent. -- 74 percent favored requiring married women to tell their husbands before receiving an abortion and 24 percent opposed the requirement. On these issues, Hoosier are more conservative than the rest of the nation. A USA Today/CNN/Gallop poll taken earlier this summer showed that 73 percent of American voters supported a 24-hour waiting period before abortions and only 71 percent favored parental notification. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- "and 10 percent said abortions should not be allowed under any circumstances" The above line is from the article I just sent you from the UPI. My question is as follows. If a pollster called me and asked me if I favored banning abortions under any circumstances, I would have to ask him to clarify the question. He would restate the question to me and I would ask him, "is an abortion with the mothers life in question an exception." He would reply yes. I would have to reply no to the question. Is this a fair question when no pro-lifers hold this view. In my opinion those 10% are fully lying if they truely wish for a full ban on abortions (incl mother life). What do you think of this? - Caleb Cohen ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) ACROSS THE POND - IRISH ABORTION CONTROVERSY BLOWS UP AGAIN There was some indication that all was not well between the PDs and Fianna Fail when Des O'Malley called for all-party agreement on any moves to sort out problems relating to abortion. This came just two days before the Government announced proposals for a referendum, which it considers necessary following the Supreme Court in the "X" case earlier in the year. It is the Government's intention that we [the Irish electorate] answer three separate questions in the referendum which will take place on December 3. First we will be asked to remove any limits on "freedom to travel between this State and another state". If the second proposal is accepted, the availability of information on abortion services will become a matter for legislation rather than the Constitution. It is the third proposal which has generated heated debate. It attempts to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court which allowed for abortion in certain circumstances. The arguments in relation to this are that the wording is unclear and that it will place the life of some women in jeopardy. The Government tried to produce a set of words which would make abortion totally illegal, but at the same time, ensure that a pregnant mother could receive any necessary life-saving medical treatment even if this resulted in the death of the foetus. Some people argue that the wording used will permit direct abortion as part of medical treatment rather than as a result of such treatment. Others argue that illnesses with the potential to shorten the life of a woman (eg. hypertension) should also be treated at the expense of the foetus. The wording makes it clear that potential suicide will not be a reason to allow any treatment which will lead to the death of the foetus. This also displeases some who have become involved in the argument. There is, of course, also a body of opinion which believes that abortion on demand should be made legal. The controversy gathered steam when Minister for Health John O'Connell appeared with other politicians on the "Prime Time" current affairs programme. Presenter Olivia O'Leary insisted that there was a basic disagreement between Dr O'Connell and the Taoiseach but such disagreement was not obvious. However, the words used in a document released in an attempt to clarify the Government's intent only created more confusion. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) LOOKING FOR SUPREME COURT DECISIONS? You can get the text of Supreme Court decisions from a number of sites, including ftp.cwru.edu (directory /hermes). They're available in a few different formats, and there's an index of which ones they have and what the filenames are. - George Paci ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) PRO-LIFE COMPANIES Two pro-life companies which are relatively well-known as such, at least on the west coast: - Carl Krucher(or Kratzky or ???) Enterprises which own Carl's Jr restaurants out here. They also do things like employ handicapped workers. Carl's Jr is a west coast fast food chain which has better than average (variety & quality) though more expensive than average (eg MacDonalds or Burger King). I don't know much about their pro- life stand, but NOW was boycotting them. - In-n-Out. Another fast-food place. They are almost the least expensive, but they have good food. The local one here in Pasadena has the "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" billboard right next to it. They also sponsor a 24 hour Christmas program on KZLA, LA's biggest country music station, with a very Christian theme. I don't know if they've caught heat from NOW or not, but we give them business which we might not otherwise do. - Liz Allen Anyone know of any more? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of the Month: "Abortion is a very safe medical procedure...safer than a delivery,'' - Amy Coen, executive director of Planned Parenthood Chicago. From a UPI Article, September, 1992 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 1 - From "American Caucus" Issue for Jul 20- Aug 02 92, p9. This | | information was posted on the net by eyc@acpub.duke.edu | | (EMIL CHUCK) Reader Frances VanScoy provided the info. | | 2 - Excerpts from clari.local.indiana: 10-Sep-92 Poll says Hoosiers | | favor abortion restrictions (2572) | | 3 - From "THE IRISH EMIGRANT" Issue No.297, 12 Oct, '92. Requests | | to be added to the distribution list should be sent to: | | irish-net-REQUEST@cs.cornell.edu | |QOM- From a UPI Article, early September, 1992 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.