11-9-89 Thursday. Two gubernatorial races are over, and in both cases the candidate who was pro-choice on abortion won. The candidates, James Florio of New Jersey and Douglas Wilder of Virginia, took a significant risk by publicly favoring a woman’s right to abort. So-called pro-lifers have claimed for years that they have grassroots support for their movement, but now political pundits are rethinking this dogma. The current wisdom is this. Since 1973, when the [United States] Supreme Court ruled that women have a right to abort in at least the first trimester of pregnancy, all battles have been fought at the margin. The issues have included public funding of abortion, whether states can require parental consent or notice, and whether states can regulate private abortion clinics. This past summer, however, the complexion of the debate changed. While Webster v. Reproductive Health Services didn’t change the law, it signaled that change is imminent. For the first time, women see their rights threatened. They know that if they fail to mobilize and exert pressure on political candidates, it may be too late. In short, there appears to be a silent majority of pro-choice voters across the nation—voters who will cast out those who would deprive them of the right to choose. I love it. The religious right is on the run. For years it had a single Supreme Court opinion to attack. If Roe v. Wade is overruled, it will throw the abortion debate to the states, where, judging from these returns, pro-choicers may win the day.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 