"COUNTDOWN TO A FLIP-FLOP" #4
##
MCCL support for Hatch prompts allegations of flip-flop on abortion issue
Abortion rights advocates accused gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch Thursday of flip-flopping against them, igniting a controversy that could affect the outcome of a three-way DFL primary.
The charge was triggered by a newsletter sent this week by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's leading group opposed to abortion. The newsletter confers an official recommendation of Hatch in the DFL primary.
The MCCL backing is based on Hatch's agreement with the group's position on each of eight questions involving current abortion issues. His positions include support for "informed consent" laws and parental notification and opposition to public funding for abortions and against the proposed Freedom of Choice Act. He also sided with MCCL in backing a law against abortion "as a means of birth control."
The problem with all that is that Hatch, like both his DFL opponents, continues to identify himself as a staunch supporter of abortion rights. He has held that position for many years and promoted it in his 1990 challenge to DFL Gov. Rudy Perpich, who was a fairly passive opponent of abortion. The Hatch campaign currently is running a television ad that contains a strong appeal to women and feminists, without mentioning the abortion issue.
Hatch insists that he's trying to explore a middle ground on a bitterly divisive issue. "We're beyond Roe vs. Wade. . . . [The question is] How do you discourage abortions without interfering with the right to privacy?" He added: "At some point in time, the rights of the baby outweigh the rights of the mother."
Sue Rockne, a former Hatch supporter and a veteran DFL activist, said the spectacle of a once-strong advocate of abortion rights obtaining MCCL's support was "obscene. . . . This is a man who wants to hold office so bad he's willing to sell his soul."
Support from abortion opponents may be critical in the Sept. 13 primary. The race between Hatch, Tony Bouza and John Marty is by all accounts close. DFLers opposed to abortion comprise a fairly large minority of likely DFL primary voters, especially in outstate regions and among Catholics, and Hatch's campaign primarily is pitched at those voters. In a three-way race, unified support of voters opposed to abortion could produce victory.
The MCCL recommendation is based on Hatch's perfect score on eight questions listed in the newsletter. His responses represent a dramatic transformation, said Lisa Goodman, executive director of the Minnesota affiliate of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.
While Hatch was a "100 percent pro-choice" candidate for governor in 1990, his responses to MCCL questions represent an abrupt about-face, Goodman said.
"Obviously, the pro-choice community cannot trust Mike Hatch. I wonder if the MCCL, or the citizens of Minnesota, should trust him," Goodman said.
Hatch said the MCCL support is based in part on a misunderstanding of one question, regarding his support for a law against abortion as "a means of birth control." But Hatch also said he welcomed the MCCL support and he refused to accuse the group of misleading him on its questionnaire.
"I don't think my position has changed," Hatch said. "A woman's got a right to choose, but there's something wrong about all these abortions, and we've got to do something about it."
Hatch made it clear earlier in the campaign that he supported the idea of an "informed consent" law, which requires doctors to provide information about alternatives to abortion and a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion. Hatch indicated to MCCL that he opposes any change in current laws, currently on appeal, that forbid most forms of public funding for abortions. And Hatch opposes any change in a Minnesota law that requires parental consent for minors seeking abortion.
But the biggest trouble for Hatch is based in his positive response to a question about whether he would support "a law that would prevent the use of abortion as a means of birth control."
The MCCL newsletter goes on to describe abortion for birth control, in the interest of "clarity and enforceability," as any abortion "not done to preserve the life of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, grave health damage to the mother, or serious disability to the child."
That would prohibit most elective abortions being performed today. And support for such a law would put Hatch directly and unequivocally in opposition to his longtime stance as a defender of the Roe v. Wade decision.
But Hatch insists that his response to that particular question has been misinterpreted.
Hatch said the MCCL definition of the proposed law was not spelled out in the candidate questionnaire. He said that the newsletter definition is "a little broader" than his own and that his opposition to abortion for birth control is more of a general concern.
When asked exactly what kind of law he would support to prevent abortion "as a means of birth control," Hatch said: "I don't know." He said he was certain, however, that "large numbers of women" are relying on abortion for birth control and not using other methods.
Hatch also said he was not "the initiator" of the link between himself and groups opposed to abortion. He said Bouza's published comments about abortion being an effective deterrence to crime have infuriated abortion opponents and that they wanted to ensure that Bouza does not survive the primary.
"I'm the vehicle to make sure he isn't governor," Hatch said. "I welcome it [MCCL support], but I'm not the initiator."
Jackie Schwietz, coexecutive director of MCCL, confirmed that Hatch was getting support because Bouza and Marty are unacceptable.
She said her group felt obligated to recommend the most acceptable DFLer for the large number of DFLers who could not bring themselves to vote for abortion opponent Allen Quist in the Independent-Republican primary.
A key factor, too, Schwietz said, was Hatch's opposition to inclusion of abortion services in pending health-care reform legislation.
Schwietz said Hatch's history was less important than his current position. "All we can go on is what he says today," she said. She also emphasized that the support for Hatch was "a recommendation" and not a full-fledged "endorsement," like that afforded to Quist.
However, the newsletter on its mock-up ballot features Hatch and Quist in equal fashion, with a bold check-mark entered in the box by their names.
Goodman, of NARAL, challenged Hatch's assertion that he was almost a passive recipient of the MCCL backing. She said Hatch has put distance between himself and his former allies, and with apparent calculation.
"If he's not the initiator, why didn't he respond to the NARAL questionnaire? Why didn't he attend our big [abortion rights] fund-raiser. . . . He hasn't reached out at all to the pro-choice community, yet when he ran against Perpich, [abortion rights leaders] were leading the charge."
Hatch denied any great political benefit from the MCCL support.
He said he probably would lose as many votes from the MCCL support as he gained.
Aside from the impact of the controversy on the DFL field, all parties agree that a potential loser from the MCCL recommendation could be Quist, who was banking on being widely regarded as the only candidate in the field of five who is opposed to abortion. Sourc: Star Tribune, September 2, 1994
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home