Election 2002: what does it mean for reproductive and sexual health? (Policy Update).

Confident in victory; Republicans have decided they are on the right track and have therefore basically re-elected their leadership in the U.S. Congress. *

The November 25 issue of The Washington Post reported that the Bush Administration and conservative Republicans will now push their social agenda since they have regained control of the Senate.

In the aftermath of the election, Democrats began devouring each other, feeding into news stories that characterized their defeat in the mid-term election as a "disaster" and "a massive debacle." In one instance, a struggle ensued between young Democratic moderates and the party's status quo over replacing retiring minority leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO).

If the objective political observers have it right, these actions were misguided.

For example, Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report has an entirely different take. Writing for the National Journal's Congress Daily, he used phrases like "no tidal wave" and "no seismic shift" to describe the most recent election. In summary, he said, "No wave happened in 2002, only a light breeze that was sufficient to tip a number of the closest races to Republicans."

While Cook and others may be right, the policy implications of the election for reproductive and sexual health advocates could indeed represent a tidal wave--one that threatens to engulf a woman's right to choose and to significantly restrict the resources and information available to Americans about sexual health.

THE SENATE AND CHOICE

The Democrat's one-vote margin in the Senate prior to the 2002 election did not produce a great deal of progressive legislation. In fact, some of their proposals differed little from what their Republican colleagues might have staked out. Yet, the Democratic majority did help block the most conservative of threats to reproductive rights passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

This was obvious when the Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) went on record pledging a swift passage of the so-called partial birth abortion ban in the Senate. The legislation--an attempt to further erode the constitutionally protected rights to abortion services guaranteed by the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973--has not come up for a vote in the Democratically-controlled Senate but was passed during the 107th session in the House. Lott is intent on delivering the slippery--slope legislation to President Bush's desk, where it is expected to quickly become law.

Legislation aside, the biggest threat to reproductive and sexual health in a new Republican-controlled Senate is the appointment of President Bush's judicial nominees. Prochoice advocates have voiced concern about the fragile makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court for years. Given the slim 5 to 4 margin of victory in the Supreme Court's Stenberg v. Carhart ruling in 2000--when Nebraska's broadly-worded ban on so-called partial birth abortion was struck down--and the fact that we are experiencing the longest period without a Supreme Court vacancy in over a century, there is real and genuine concern about a Bush appointee who would support a fundamental reexamination and possible overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Lower level courts are also at increasing risk. Senator Lott has indicated that the White House will re-nominate two anti-choice appellate court nominees defeated in the Democratically-controlled Senate: Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and U.S. District Court Judge Charles Pickering.

The only obstacle to stopping the judicial activism of the Bush Administration lies with the Senate's ability to filibuster a nomination. Maintaining a filibuster, and thereby killing a nomination, requires only 41 members. But there is now an anti-choice majority in the Senate and the Senators with a mixed record on choice may find blocking a nominee politically unappealing.

THE CONGRESS AND OTHER ISSUES

In total, the 107th Congress was hardly a friend to reproductive and sexual health issues. Just how much worse the 108th Congress will be depends on how the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership view the election. Do they agree with insiders like Charlie Cook, who felt the victory was a slight tip in power, or with groups like the Family Research Council, who boldly pronounced: "This Republican Congress was elected because of the pro-life vote, and they need to heed that vote."

Apparently, the Family Research Council's spin on the election, coupled with the thinly veiled preemptory threat to move their agenda, seems to be winning out. The Washington Post has reported that key lawmakers and White House officials have confirmed a plan to curb abortion access, expand the role of faith-based organizations in social service delivery; and increase funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

Under pressure from groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, the House Republican leadership effectively killed a landmark bankruptcy bill in its last hours before adjournment because it contained a provision that anti-abortion rights activists did not like. The provision would have made anti-abortion rights protesters pay any fines they incurred as a result of protesting even if they filed for bankruptcy.

The broader specifics of the push for a new social agenda remain vague, but another recent procedural move in the House illustrates how it will likely be accomplished. Most of the controversial issues like family planning, teen pregnancy, STD/HIV prevention, and abstinence-only-until-marriage program funding come through the annual appropriations bills. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and the White House found it nearly impossible to reach consensus within their own G.O.P Conference in the House on spending levels for fiscal year 2003. Consequently, the country is three months into fiscal year 2003 with only two of the 13 spending bills passed.

In a tactical move to shore up his own authority and assure final spending levels that are authorized by the White House on all appropriations bills, Hastert forced through a rule in the G.O.P Conference that requires the Conference's conservative steering committee to approve all subcommittee chairmen of the Appropriations Committee. In theory, the rule will keep subcommittee chairmen in line with overall Republican (i.e., White House) spending levels and priorities. In practice, it likely means that subcommittee chairmen will either agree with the Republican leadership or lose their highly coveted positions of authority when the White House presents a budget with more money for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and no increases for family planning.

CONCLUSION

Until Members return to their desks and take up the people's business, it is difficult to predict what will happen in the 108th Congress. Politics is always a fickle game, especially when international issues threaten to engulf all things domestic and make them disappear from the public's eye.

And suppose that Charlie Cook is right and our current media-magnified perception of a massive Democratic debacle in the mid-term election is not reality? It probably matters little, if at all, because it is perception that triumphs and wins the minds of men and women.

That perception currently threatens an ideological conservative ascendance that does not bode well for reproductive and sexual health.

* A major exception was US. Senator Trent Lott's (R-MS) decision not to assume the role of Majority Leader of the Senate as a result of a racially-charged statement he made at the 100th birthday party of outgoing Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC). The new Majority Leader is US. Senator Bill Trist (R-TN)

For more information on judicial appointees, go to www.NeverGoBack.org, a project of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLE: CATHOLICS FOR FREE CHOICE PUBLISHES SURVEY ON EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION 

Catholics for Free Choice, a nonprofit organization in Washington, DC, has published a survey titled Second Chance Denied: Emergency Contraception in Catholic Hospital Emergency Rooms.

Conduced by Ibis Reproductive Health of Cambridge, MA, the survey of 600 Catholic hospitals nationwide focused on the circumstances under which they provided emergency contraception (EC).

Results indicate that five percent provided EC on request; 23 percent provided it to rape victims only; six percent left the decision to the attending physician; 55 percent would not dispense it under any circumstance; and 11 percent were unsure or non-responsive.

The publication points Out that guidelines developed by the Catholic bishops seeks to ensure that Catholic hospitals do not violate church teaching, which prohibits all contraception.

For more information, contact Catholics for a Free Choice, 1436 U Street, N.W., Suite 301, Washington, DC 20009. Its web site is www.catholicsforchoice.org