Setback for the New Right

Congress shies from abortion and other hot social issues

Their day had finally come. After years of exile on the fringe of American politics, after stunning victories in the 1980 elections, after almost two years of impatient waiting while the Administration and Congress focused on economic matters, the New Right and its allies at last had a fighting chance to pass the most controversial item on their social agenda: legislation to ban abortion. But after three futile attempts to muster the votes necessary to choke off a liberal filibuster, the most conservative Senate in more than a generation abandoned the effort and voted 47 to 46 last week to table the issue.

The so-called social issues were heavily debated during the 1980 campaign and were crucial in electing Ronald Reagan to the presidency. The 97th Congress, with its eager class of conservative freshmen, was expected to legislate traditional morality back into American life. But not one item of the New Right’s prospectus has yet been made a law. Legislation that would allow organized prayer in public schools faced another filibuster. A bill authorizing tax credits for private school tuitions is mired in the Senate. And a measure that would restrict busing for school desegregation passed the Senate but is languishing in the House. Even though Congress will reconvene after the November elections, it is unlikely there will be either the time or inclination this year to pass any new social legislation.

“If we have to fight again another day, then we’ll fight again another day,” insisted Jesse Helms, the conservative North Carolina Republican who lost a bit of his reputation as a mover and shaker in the Senate by failing to win passage of the antiabortion bill. “We’re closer to victory than ever before.” But others felt that the movement had come as close as it ever will. “This was the last great push for the Moral Majority types,” said Senator Bob Packwood, the moderate Oregon Republican who led the bipartisan filibuster against Helms. “They’ve peaked.”

The antiabortion forces hurt their own cause by bickering over which approach to take. Some favored a constitutional amendment, sponsored by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, that would give states and the Federal Government authority to outlaw abortion. The Hatch Amendment, if passed, would directly overturn a 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing the constitutional right to an abortion, but it would require approval by two-thirds of both chambers and three-fourths of the states. Others favored the more radical approach, proposed by Helms, of simply passing a law stating that “life,” as protected by the Constitution, begins at conception. This would, in effect, allow abortion to be classified as murder and force the Supreme Court to review its past decisions in light of the new legislation.

Majority Leader Howard Baker agreed to bring both measures to the Senate floor and negotiated a deal with liberal opponents not to filibuster. But at the last minute, Helms offered a weaker version of his original bill. Packwood, accusing Helms of breaking the Baker agreement, began his filibuster with the help of six other Senators. Helms was never able to get within ten votes of the 60 necessary to cut off debate, and a frustrated Senate decided to shelve the matter. Realizing that his constitutional amendment also could not pass, Hatch withdrew it from consideration.

In hopes of attracting broader support for his abortion initiative, Helms proposed a companion measure that would permit organized prayer in public schools. In Engel vs. Vitale, the Supreme Court in 1962 ruled that such state-sanctioned prayer sessions violated the Constitution. Helms’ measure would forbid the federal courts to rule on the issue, a ploy that most legal scholars believe would eventually be rejected by the Supreme Court. This tactic alienated even some of his ideological brethren. “Speaking as a conservative, I don’t believe in restricting the actions of the courts,” said Arizona Republican Barry Goldwater.

So far, Helms has been unable to muzzle the filibuster on the school-prayer issue, which is being led by Connecticut Republican Lowell Weicker. Debate is expected to continue this week. If Helms does win cloture, the proposal will probably pass the Senate. The measure is likely to win a majority if it reaches the floor of the House. Nonetheless, opponents of the bill are said to have enough parliamentary stalling devices at then-disposal to prevent school prayer from becoming law this year.

The White House has offered conservatives on the Hill somewhat less than wholehearted support on most of the social issues. Reagan personally believes in outlawing abortion and allowing school prayer. Some of his advisers, however, did not want him to expend political capital fighting for these issues at a time when he was also battling for his economic program. In addition, both the Justice Department and the White House have expressed qualms about legislation, like Helms’ prayer amendment, that would strip the courts of the power to interpret the Constitution.

Reagan has come under increasing attack from conservatives for abandoning their principles; and his handling of the economy is becoming a central issue in the mid-term elections. Thus the President’s strategists agreed that it was time to offer more visible support to the New Right. Speaking to a group of religion editors last week, he said he would fight to outlaw abortion even “if it takes all four years” of his term.

In political terms, the failure of Helms’ bill gave the White House the best of both worlds. It allowed Reagan to win support from the pro-life movement for his efforts, without accentuating the searing national issue. Said one pragmatic White House senior adviser, after counting enough noses to conclude that Helms’ bill could not pass: “Why not support it? It’s not going anywhere.”

On school prayer, the Administration is prepared to go even further than Helms. It is pressing for a constitutional amendment, which would automatically supersede previous Supreme Court rulings. Reagan spoke in favor of the amendment to the Constitution in his regular Saturday radio broadcast. Expectations are that if this measure passes the Senate it would still be blocked by the House Judiciary Committee. The White House has also won approval from a Senate committee for a compromise on its tuition tax-credit bill. On all of these issues, the Administration’s political strategy is to force votes in the Senate and then lambaste liberal Democrats for obstructing the legislation.

Reagan indirectly improved the chances for floor showdowns on school prayer and other issues by maneuvering Congress into returning for a lameduck session in November. He wrote congressional leaders last week urging them to reconvene after the elections and to write full-scale appropriation bills. One potential side effect: the session might allow more time during the next few weeks to debate social issues.

The real purpose of the November session is to force Congress to deal with Social Security reform, an issue so sensitive that no one even wants to mention it before the elections. A bipartisan commission examining the financially troubled system is expected to have its report ready in mid-November.

The pro-life movement and the New Right plan to force the social issues to the fore this fall, based on the votes cast in Congress this month. “Whether liberals like it or not, they’re going to be staked out by these votes,” warned Helms. Vowed Conservative Leader Paul Weyrich: “This will reinvigorate the right-to-lifers.”

So far, however, the state of the economy has been the No. 1 concern of voters. Abortion, school prayer and other social controversies are not exciting the fervor of 1980. “The social issues are clearly secondary this year,” argued Martin Franks, a Democratic strategist. It seems unlikely that U.S. voters will send many reinforcements to Capitol Hill for the New Right and its North Carolina helmsman. But neither is there much likelihood of a liberal shift that would push the movement back beyond the periphery of power. The elections in November, like the congressional actions last week, will no doubt ensure that the social issues remain emotional—and unresolved.

—By Walter Isaacson. Reported by John F. Stacks and Evan Thomas/ Washington