WASHINGTON (BP)–The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision would be history had the person who probably was President Reagan’s first choice for the Supreme Court accepted a nomination, a political biographer says.
William Clark, Reagan’s close friend and then-deputy secretary of state, declined the opportunity in 1981, however, and Sandra Day O’Connor instead won a place on the high court. Had Clark become a justice, the Supreme Court would have had a majority to overturn Roe at least 15 years ago, Paul Kengor says.
Kengor, a professor at Grove City (Pa.) College, explained his contention in an interview posted Dec. 12 on the weblog of fellow Grove City professor Warren Throckmorton. Kengor recently coauthored a biography of Clark after previously writing two books on Reagan.
Reagan “called Clark into the Oval Office and asked if he wanted to be considered for the court vacancy,” Kengor said. “Clark said no. He said he enjoyed what he was doing for Reagan’s foreign policy, and he never came to Washington to die there. He wanted to serve Reagan faithfully for a few crucial years and then return to California to get back to his family and life on his ranch.
“When Clark said that, President Reagan pulled a note card from his coat pocket -– which included only a few names, I believe with Clark’s at the top — and said, ‘That’s what I thought you’d say, Bill.’ Reagan scratched off Clark’s name.”
Reagan nominated O’Connor, who refused to vote to overturn Roe. She joined with others on the court to affirm Roe while permitting some state restrictions in a 5-4 decision in 1992.
In the interview, Throckmorton asked Kengor if Clark would have voted to reverse Roe.
“Absolutely,” Kengor said. “Bill Clark would have been the swing vote that overturned Roe v. Wade, particularly through the 1992 case, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.”
Instead, Clark, whom Reagan had named to the California Supreme Court when he was governor, became his national security adviser and “laid the foundation to win the Cold War,” Kengor said.
Jan. 22 will mark Roe’s 35th anniversary.
CONGRESS RELENTS ON MEXICO CITY POLICY -– Pro-life advocates have won the latest battle over a ban on federal funds for organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.
Language to weaken the Mexico City policy was removed from a spending bill in the face of a veto threat from President Bush, it was announced Dec. 17. Under the policy, organizations may receive federal aid if they agree not to perform abortions, to lobby foreign governments to revise their abortion laws and to “promote abortion as a method of family planning.”
Bush reinstated the rule by executive order on his second full day in office in 2001. President Reagan had first established the policy, which was announced at a 1984 conference in Mexico’s capital. When President Clinton took office in 1993, he immediately rescinded the rule.
In May, Bush warned Democratic leaders he would veto any measure sent him by Congress that “weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.”
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said, “This is a victory for the unborn around the world, and it’s once again an example of what can be accomplished when you have a pro-life president who has the courage of his convictions and stands by them.”
BELEAGUERED CASEY OFFERS PRO-LIFE BILL — Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania introduced legislation to reduce abortions a few days after ads sharply questioning his pro-life commitment ran in state newspapers.
Casey introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act, S. 2407, Dec. 4. The legislation is part of Democrats for Life of America’s 95-10 initiative, which seeks to cut abortions by 95 percent in 10 years. Its proposals include requiring informed consent for all women considering abortion and establishing grants for colleges to provide services to pregnant and parenting students.
Two pro-life organizations -– Focus on the Family and the Pennsylvania Family Institute -– had paid for ads in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and three other newspapers just prior to Casey’s action. They did so after Casey, who had campaigned last year as a pro-lifer, twice voted to enable federal funds to go to abortion providers.
Under the title “Prodigal Senator?” the ads urged Casey to “come home,” saying, “Senator, be who you claim to be. Live up to your pro-life commitment. And if you are who you claim to be, then work to defend the most innocent, defenseless member of the human family, the unborn child.”
PRO-LIFERS: ACOG, GET A CONSCIENCE — The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) just doesn’t understand what it means to have a conscience, some pro-life leaders say.
ACOG’s Committee on Ethics issued in November a position paper saying pro-life physicians should refer women seeking abortions to doctors who will perform the procedures. The statement even says doctors “with moral or religious objections” should locate their practices near physicians who will perform abortions.
In a Dec. 7 letter, David Stevens, chief executive officer of the Christian Medical Association, and 27 co-signers urged ACOG to repudiate and withdraw the paper.
The five-page statement “suggests a profound misunderstanding of the nature and exercise of conscience, an underlying bias against persons of faith and an apparent attempt to disenfranchise physicians who oppose ACOG’s political activism on abortion,” Stevens and the others said. “The paper indicates that ACOG views the exercise of conscience and faith not so much as a cornerstone right in a democracy or as a historic hallmark of medicine, but rather as an inconvenient obstacle to abortion access.”
–30–
Tom Strode is the Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press.
