Nancy Keenan is the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America .
As Americans mark the 34th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade on Monday, they will do so amid a shift in the political landscape as a result of the 2006 election cycle.
Last November, Americans reaffirmed their commitment to a woman’s right to choose by electing pro-choice candidates and defeating anti-choice ballot measures across the country, creating an opportunity to end the divisive attacks on choice and change the tone of this debate.
These victories for the pro-choice values of freedom, privacy and personal responsibility were not a red- or blue-state phenomenon. In fact, voters in Arizona, Kansas and New Mexico—states President Bush carried in 2004—all re-elected pro-choice governors.
In South Dakota, one of the nation’s conservative strongholds, voters overwhelmingly rejected an abortion ban that its supporters had described as a direct challenge to Roe .
In California and Oregon, voters defeated dangerous and divisive anti-choice ballot measures (for the second time in two years in California).
The congressional elections also produced numerous pro-choice gains. The 110th Congress includes 23 new pro-choice seats in the House and three new pro-choice seats in the Senate (seats once held by anti- or mixed-choice members). In fact, 81 percent of the 44 new Democrats in the House are pro-choice, dispelling the myth from far-right political observers that only “pro-life” Democratic candidates won.
How did these successes happen? Frankly, the public has grown tired of the divisiveness on this topic. Women aren’t empowered by it. Families aren’t served by it. Americans want to see a different vision for the country, and we capitalized on this call for change with a $2.5 million political program that communicated to voters why elections matter—and why electing pro-choice candidates will have a positive effect on our everyday lives.
We drew these distinctions early on in the election cycle. In 2005, NARAL Pro-Choice America worked with lawmakers to launch Prevention First—an agenda that calls for sound solutions like requiring insurance companies to cover birth control in the same way they cover other prescription medications, making sure our teens get honest, realistic sex education in schools and improving family-planning services for women and families.
These are not controversial proposals. As a recent Wall Street Journal poll confirms, even a vast majority of people who identify as “pro-life” resoundingly support better access to birth control and honest, realistic sex education.
Pro-choice candidates stepped up with a plan to focus on these common-sense, common-ground solutions to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion, without making access more difficult or dangerous.
And voters responded to those candidates who clearly communicated their support for Roe v. Wade and were able to contrast their support for the values of freedom and privacy with opponents who had joined with President Bush and other anti-choice leaders in attack after attack on safe, legal abortion and birth control.
We should celebrate these electoral wins. But while we now have more allies in Congress and in state legislatures, the terrain is not without some road blocks. Simultaneously, we will further advance a pro-choice agenda while we continue to fight back attacks.
The 16th annual "Who Decides? The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States," which NARAL Pro-Choice America is releasing today, illustrates the opportunities and challenges facing pro-choice Americans in the wake of these electoral gains.
On the challenge side, this report reminds us that favorable election returns won’t erase the calculated way in which anti-choice politicians and groups use the states as laboratories to test new policies designed to undermine women’s access to safe, legal abortion and birth control. That’s why the "Who Decides" report still ranks the nation’s overall grade for women’s reproductive rights a dismal D minus.
In 2006, 45 states considered 650 anti-choice measures, a 6 percent increase from 2005.
Seventeen states enacted 45 of these anti-choice measures which means more women will face obstacles to accessing birth control or abortion care.
Already this month, legislators in Georgia have introduced an abortion ban that would impose life in prison or the death penalty for women who have abortions and the doctors who provide this care. Lawmakers in Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia are also considering bills intended to outlaw abortion care in their state if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe .
The Supreme Court’s role in this debate will once again come to the forefront as we brace ourselves for the pending decision on the Federal Abortion Ban, which was passed by an anti-choice Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2003. Pro-choice groups immediately challenged the ban since the Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical state law as unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote in 2000.
Every lower federal court that has reviewed this case has said this federal law is unconstitutional. Yet, less than two weeks after Bush-appointed Justice Samuel Alito took the bench to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who provided the fifth vote to strike down the state law in 2000), the newly configured court agreed to take up the case. The justices heard oral arguments one day after pro-choice Americans celebrated the outcome of the November 7 elections—and the decision is expected this spring.
As the 2007 sessions start, legislatures under anti-choice control still outnumber pro-choice legislatures by nearly two to one. But, in a positive post-election development, the number of states with the combination of an anti-choice governor and legislature has decreased from 19 to 14.
There are three new states with pro-choice governments (both a majority of the legislature and the governor are pro-choice): Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Oregon.
The prospect for progress builds on successes we’ve already achieved. In 2006, 42 states considered 470 pro-choice measures; 187 of these were prevention-based measures, focusing on better access to birth control or ensuring our kids get medically accurate information in sex education classes.
Now, with the change in leadership in Congress and in legislatures across the country, elected officials have an opportunity to position themselves as problem solvers—and answer the public’s call for a new direction in this debate—where women and their families are empowered to make personal, private decisions without interference from politicians.
One election cycle can’t change everything, but pro-choice Americans showed that by working together and acting on our values, we can lay the foundation for a future where the principles that Roe represents—freedom and privacy—are protected.
