There's more at stake than Roe vs. Wade

Numerous other presidential appointments will also affect abortion in the United States. The secretary of Health and Human Services, the surgeon general, the head of the Centers for Disease Control, the head of the National Institutes of Health and the deputy assistant secretary for population affairs are all key governmental posts with respect to abortion.

Because those holding such positions influence key abortion-related issues -- such as fetal tissue research, collection of reliable data on the numbers of abortions performed in the U.S., shaping of the public discourse surrounding controversial abortion procedures such as the so-called "partial birth abortion," and so on -- the appointments are scrutinized by both pro-choice and anti-abortion activists.

Who might Bush pick for such key positions? His record as Texas governor is not only revealing but is a clear example of how his presidency could resemble his father's. Bush Jr.'s commissioner of health services in Texas -- until he resigned last week in disgrace -- was William "Reyn" Archer, son of a legendary right-wing Texas congressman and, in the early 1990s, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs under President Bush. Reyn Archer distinguished himself in the latter post by repeatedly declaring his opposition to premarital sex and most forms of birth control and, of course, by his fanatic opposition to abortion.

He was particularly known as the point person for Bush on the infamous "gag rule" -- the regulation that prevented staff at federally funded family planning clinics from even discussing the option of abortion with patients. When asked by a congressman at a hearing whether he would sanction a referral to an abortion service if a woman's life were at stake, he replied no.

On another occasion, he was quoted by the New York Times as having said that "when it became possible for women to buy contraceptives on their own, men lost their manhood." He finally left his Texas post after a series of pubic-relations disasters in which he insulted African-Americans, Hispanics, women and poor people.

In contrast to Archer, the deputy assistant secretary of population affairs under Clinton was Felicia Stewart, a respected figure in reproductive-health circles and a longtime supporter of abortion rights. Stewart led a tireless and ultimately successful campaign to boost the availability and visibility of the "morning-after pill" -- now known as "emergency contraception."

This was long overdue. Emergency contraception -- an ingestion of a high dose of oral medication after unprotected intercourse -- had for years been used in some college health services and for rape victims in hospitals. But the packaging and marketing of products labeled specifically for this purpose had been opposed by anti-abortion forces, who viewed it as an "abortifacient" -- an inducer of abortion.

There are many more ways that a president's views on abortion can affect public policy. Take the issue of executive orders. In Clinton's first week in office, he issued an executive order lifting the ban supported by Reagan and Bush on importing RU-486 into this country for personal use -- a crucial first step in the long road to approval of the drug in this country -- and another nullifying the gag rule in U.S. family planning clinics. As president, Bush could immediately reinstate the gag rule through the same mechanism.

Finally, the Supreme Court remains a vital issue. No one can predict with 100 percent accuracy how a newly appointed justice will vote on particular issues, even abortion. Witness, for example, the surprising alliance that David Souter, a Bush appointee, has struck with the court's liberal wing. But it is hard to take seriously Bush's claim that he will impose no abortion litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees, given that he is on record as declaring that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- the two most hard-line abortion opponents on the court -- are his "favorite" justices. And the next president, of course, will name numerous lower court judges who will play a crucial role in determining the course of abortion provision in the foreseeable future.

Ever since Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, opponents have waged a war to overturn it. Seven members of the abortion-providing community have been murdered and thousands more have been shot, stalked and otherwise terrorized. Even with the improvements of the last eight years, abortion providers still drive to and from their offices in bulletproof vests and work in clinics that often resemble armed fortresses. Given these conditions, it makes more sense to wonder that in 14 percent of U.S. counties there are facilities known to provide abortions rather than to profess surprise that in 86 percent of counties there are not.

The steps taken by Clinton and Gore since 1992 have bolstered the morale of the beleaguered community of abortion providers -- without whose perseverance and courage there would be no safe and legal abortions no matter what the status of Roe vs. Wade. Neither Bush's evasive chirping about how good people can disagree when he is asked about abortion at a national forum nor Nader's impatient dismissal of the differences between Bush and Gore should blind supporters of reproductive freedom to the stakes in this election.

They are monumental.

• View blog reactions