ELECTION 2008 | 'Divisive Social Issues' Could Draw Attention From Presidential Candidates, New York Times Reports
[Aug 12, 2008]

"Divisive social issues" set to be on the ballot in several states in November -- including antiabortion-related measures in California, Colorado and South Dakota and a measure to loosen stem cell research restrictions in Michigan -- have begun attracting the attention of presidential candidates Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) despite research that indicates ballot measures do not significantly affect voter turnout, the New York Times reports. Jennie Drage Bowser, a policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said many of the social measures on the ballots are being pushed by evangelical groups with the hope of forcing McCain to pay more attention to their agendas. According to the Times, there are at least 108 measures on statewide ballots this year, down from 204 in 2006, and no single issue appears to dominate.

Californians will vote for the third time on a measure that would require parental notification for minors seeking abortions. South Dakota voters will consider an abortion ban (Urbina, New York Times, 8/10). Under the measure, abortions would be permitted only in cases of rape or incest, to save a woman's life, or in cases of a "substantial and irreversible" health risk of impairment to "a major bodily organ or system" (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 4/28). According to the Times, the South Dakota measure would be one of the strictest abortion bans in the country and likely would lead to a challenge in the courts.

Colorado voters will face a measure that would define a "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization" -- the first of its kind in the U.S. The Times reports that groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and Focus on the Family do not support the Colorado initiative, arguing that the timing and language are not sound.

A memorandum circulated among advocates and lawmakers last year by Indiana law firm Bopp, Coleson and Bostrom, which is closely associated with NRTL, argued that now is not the time to promote "personhood" measures because they will fail in the courts. Clarke Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life, also said such measures "run the risk of taking much-needed resources and attention away from other types of laws that could protect women and their unborn children immediately."

Kristina Wilfore, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, said the lack of unity and focus among conservatives this year on measures such as the Colorado measure could put McCain in a difficult position by forcing him to choose sides. Daniel Smith, a political science professor at the University of Florida, said, "Many of these conservative measures -- be they abortion, affirmative action or gay marriage -- may be very risky for McCain to touch directly because voters are very focused on the economy and the war," adding, "McCain will have to use proxies to play up these issues because his own stances on these issues have not always been so clear" (New York Times, 8/10).

Wall Street Journal Profiles Campaigns For, Against S.D. Initiative

The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday profiled the campaigns for and against the abortion ban initiative in South Dakota. The article also examined the potential national implications of the measure.

According to the Journal, South Dakota has become a "focal point" of the abortion rights debate in recent years largely because of Leslee Unruh, founder of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and the Alpha Center, which aims to counsel women on alternatives to abortion. Unruh said her goal is to have Roe v. Wade overturned. Proponents of the ban hope that if it passes, it will be challenged in court and trigger a challenge to the precedent set by Roe in the Supreme Court, which has implications in the presidential race, the Journal reports. Obama has said he supports upholding Roe and abortion rights, while McCain has said he wants Roe overturned. "While South Dakota accounts for only 0.1% of all abortions, it has a potentially disproportionate effect on public policy, because people are seeking to create a vehicle to overturn Roe," Sarah Stoesz -- president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota -- said.

South Dakota voters in 2006 rejected a similar ban by 56% to 44%. However, the 2006 ban would have allowed abortions only if pregnant women's lives were in jeopardy, and polling showed that some people who voted against the ban would have voted for it if there were rape and incest exceptions as well, the Journal reports. Abortion-rights advocates said that the new exceptions on the more than 2,400-word 2008 ban are written so narrowly that they have the aim of being meaningless.

Jan Nicolay -- co-chair of the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, a coalition of groups opposed to the ban -- said, "We need to help people understand that the exceptions are very complicated -- this is still a total ban." Marvin Buehner -- an ob-gyn in Rapid City, S.D., who is campaigning against the ban -- said he has performed abortions for some women with serious health issues, including a woman with rectal cancer who needed chemotherapy and radiation. If the ban passes, Buehner said he would not perform such abortions because of the risk of being charged with violating the ban and serving 10 years in prison. The phrase "'accepted standards of medical practice' is so vague and nebulous that no physicians I know, myself included, would take that chance."

Groups opposing the ban are planning to hold an event Tuesday in Washington, D.C., that includes leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Groups supporting the ban are gathering endorsements from conservative leaders, including Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (Merrick, Wall Street Journal, 8/12).





The information contained in this publication reflects media coverage of women’s health issues and does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

News Room  |  Research Library  |  Ways to Give  |  Jobs  |  Privacy  |  Site Search  |  Contact Us  |  RSS  |  Home © 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families