From .......... GOVERNING AMERICA - An Insider's Report
From the White House and the Cabinet
By Joseph A. Califano, Jr.
55 ................ ABORTION
Father English spoke softly about the pluralistic society and the democratic system, in which each of us has an opportunity to express his views. Most statutory law codifies morality, he noted, whether prohibiting stealing or assault, or promoting equal rights, and the arguments of citizens over what the law should be are founded in individual moral values. He said that my obligation to my personal conscience was satisfied if I expressed those views forcefully.
I postulated a law that any abortion could be funded by the federal government, simply upon the request of the woman. He said that so long as I tried to pursue the public policy I believed correct, then I was free Ñindeed obliged if I stayed in the jobÑto enforce that permissive law. I was relieved, comforted by his quiet assurance. As I thanked him for coming by, he mentioned an expert in this field, Father Richard McCormick, a Jesuit at the Kennedy Institute of Bioethics at Georgetown, whose advice I might find helpful.
On the following Monday evening, January 10, representatives of the National Women's Political Caucus sat on the same red couch Father English had occupied. It was the most intense of a series of meetings with various special interest groups.
As the women filed through the door to my office, I shook hands with each one. Their eyes seemed cold and skeptical, and reflected deep concern, even when they smiled. The warm welcome with which I greeted them masked my own foreboding about the imminence of the clash on abortion.
The discussion began on common ground: the failure of the Nixon and Ford administrations to enforce laws prohibiting sex discrimination. One after another, the representatives of each group in the women's political caucus attacked the enemy:
discrimination in the Social Security system (in terms far more forceful than Jimmy Carter's quaint accusation that the benefit structure encouraged senior citizens to ''live in sin"), in the federal income tax system, and on the nation's campuses.
Most mentioned female appointments at HEW, but since they knew I was searching for qualified women, they did not linger on the personnel issue. Margot Polivy, a tough and talented attorney litigating to eliminate discrimination in women's athletics, pressed her case for HEW enforcement of Title IX, the law prohibiting sex discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funds.
I shared most of the views the women expressed on these subjects and they knew it. When are they going to stop circling their prey, I thought, and ask about abortion? Dorothy Ross, a committed feminist who had been helping me recruit for HEW jobs, was seated at my left: she had told me abortion would be the key topic and I wanted to get it over with. Then one of the women put the question:
''What's your view on abortion?''
I had decided to make my view unmistakably clear. It was important to state my position on abortion before the Senate confirmation hearings.
56 ................. GOVERNING AMERICA
No senator should be able to claim that his vote was cast for my confirmation without knowing my view on this subject. But in the tension of the moment, it was not easy or pleasant to get the words out.
''I believe abortion is morally wrong," I said softly and firmly. "That is my personal belief.''
There was a brief moment of breathtaking at the depth of conviction in my voice. Then the women responded.
"Would you deny federal funds for abortion?" one woman angrily asked.
"I oppose federal funding for abortion."
The circling was over. The questions were accusations called out like counts in an indictment.
''The Supreme Court gives a woman a right to an abortion. You would deny that right to poor women?''
''You'd deny a woman her constitutional right?''
"How can you be a liberal and hold such a view?''
"Suppose the woman's life is at stake?"
"What about rape or incest?"
"Suppose the child would be retarded, a vegetable?" "Are you going to impose your religious views on HEW?"
The questions came with such furious vehemence that I had to interrupt to respond. "Look," I said,
"I have no intention of imposing my personal view on anybody. I am prepared to enforce the law, whatever it is."
"But how could you possibly," one of the women asked, "when you have such strong personal views, such religious commitment?"
''There's nothing wrong with religious commitment," I fired back, ''and nothing about it prevents me from enforcing the law."
The women made no attempt to disguise their anger or their suspicion. I wanted to end the meeting before it further deteriorated. The subject was even more volatile than I had anticipated. I was shaken by the obvious depth and genuineness of their emotional and intellectual conviction, and the difficulty of some of the questions they had raised. But there was nothing to be gained by heated exchanges. If there were no other matters on their minds, I suggested we conclude the meeting. They were just as anxious as I to cut off discussion: they out of a desire to report to their colleagues and plan strategy; I, out of relief.
The parting was superficially amicable, but the battle lines had been drawn. Washington's feminist network buzzed with reports of the meeting throughout that evening and the next day. Late that Tuesday afternoon I was told that the women's groups would attack my nomination on the basis of my stand on abortion.
By Wednesday, the day before my confirmation hearing, the National Abortion Rights Action League had asked to appear, on behalf of fourteen groups which supported federal funds for abortion, before both Senate committees scheduled to hear me testify on my nomination.
- END QUOTE -
GOVERNING AMERICA- An Insider's Report
From the White House and the Cabinet
By Joseph A. Califano, Jr.
Published by Simon and Schuster 1981
ISBN 0-671-25428-6