Hillary and the court

How an upcoming ruling on partial-birth abortion could send shockwaves through the New York Senate race.

By Jesse Drucker

Jun 19, 2000 | Within the week, perhaps as early as today, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide the legality of a Nebraska law criminalizing the procedure commonly known as "partial birth" abortion. Regardless of what the court ultimately decides, the ruling is likely to play a significant role in the increasingly heated U.S. Senate race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rep. Rick Lazio.

Unlike the debate on the national level -- or in so many other states -- New York's Senate race is no mere contest between a decidedly pro-life Republican and a proudly pro-choice Democrat. Rather, in this heavily pro-choice state, the contest is between two pro-choice candidates. And like so many New York races in recent years, it is already featuring efforts by a Democrat to prove that the allegedly pro-choice Republican is, in reality, a threat to abortion rights.

In this race, Clinton has already leveled criticism at Lazio based on his abortion stance. Lazio claims he is "pro-choice," but his voting record on the issue is decidedly mixed. He is opposed to Medicaid funding for abortions, opposes the so-called "partial birth" procedure, and voted to prohibit women in the military from receiving abortions in military hospitals -- even if they offer to pay for it privately.

"Americans have a great number of rights that are not subsidized by the federal government," said Lazio spokesman Dan McLagan. "This is an instance where he supports a woman's right to choose, but doesn't support public funding. You have a right to go and get a driver's license, but it doesn't mean the government is going to go and get you a car." Asked how abortion differs from the numerous other medical procedures that are eligible for public funding, McLagan replied, "He just doesn't believe that it's appropriate for the taxpayers to fund abortions."

At a fundraising breakfast at the Waldorf-Astoria in Manhattan on Wednesday, Clinton denounced Lazio on this very issue. "When it comes to a woman's right to choose, I know that my opponent calls himself pro-choice, but if you look at his record, he's apparently pro-choice for rich women," she said to the overwhelmingly female crowd.

"I'm committed to supporting Roe vs. Wade," she added to loud applause. "Not just in rhetoric, but both with my voice and with my votes on behalf of any nominee to the United States Supreme Court because that is where the fight will be waged."

And that, according to one Clinton advisor, is where her campaign plans to hammer away at Lazio, who has declared he will not use support for Roe vs. Wade as a basis for voting for a Supreme Court nominee.

"I think you get the groups -- the NARALs, the Planned Parenthoods -- to go out and make the case that he can't be counted on," said one Clinton campaign advisor. "I think the big issue which will make or break this is the Supreme Court justice issue, because by the time the fall rolls around, I think it will become clear that the next senator will vote on Supreme Court justices."

Jim Chapin, a historian and occasional advisor to New York City's Public Advocate, Democrat Mark Green, said that Clinton's abortion strategy may be most effective for its connection to what could ultimately be the decisive factor in the campaign: She is a Democrat in a state where the Democratic presidential candidate is expected to win in a landslide.

"She's trying to use abortion to tap into the partisan linkage. Remember, Gore is going to win the state by a million votes or more," said Chapin. "Hillary wants to nationalize this race. What Lazio wants to do is localize the race."

So while Lazio continues to hammer Hillary on the carpetbagging issue, Clinton continues to paint her opponent with the widest of brushes as a right-wing extremist. Though Lazio voted for the Brady Bill, which requires local vendors to conduct a background check on anyone who wants to buy a handgun, Clinton has criticized Lazio for not supporting registration of all new handguns. "Apparently he is more willing to go along with the Republican leadership and the NRA than the children and families of New York," she said.

Abortion is a linchpin to that strategy. Kelli Conlin, the executive director of NARAL/New York, said that her organization plans to wage a campaign to force Lazio to take a position on Supreme Court nominees who have publicly opposed Roe vs. Wade.

A pair of recent polls, however, offer varying evidence as to just how important voters will find this issue. According to the Quinnipiac University Poll released in early June, half of New Yorkers think abortion should be "generally available to those who want it." The same poll found that 34 percent think there should be "stricter limits" on the procedure. (Only 13 percent of the state's residents think it should not be permitted at all.)

That support for abortion grows slightly in the suburbs (to 60 percent) and shrinks among upstate voters -- who are considered among the most important swing voters in this election -- to 38 percent.

A more recent New York Times/CBS News poll found less support for abortion on demand and more support for more restrictions. The Times/CBS poll also found that New Yorkers are divided -- 44 percent for and 45 percent against -- on the issue of public financing for abortion.

That's a lot of numbers, but does it tell us anything about whether people might actually choose to vote for one of these people based on their abortion stance? Well, that's unclear. The two polls offer strikingly different figures on how important an issue New Yorkers consider this to be.

Next Page: But will it work?

• View blog reactions