San Diego Union Tribune

April 1, 2005

ANALYSIS
Ongoing debate is certain; effect on law, politics is not

By George E. Condon Jr. and Finlay Lewis
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON – The ordeal and death of Terri Schiavo divided conservatives, discomfited liberals, dismayed abortion foes and triggered a growing national debate that is likely to push end-of-life issues higher on the agendas of state legislatures and Congress.

All agree that the case has been a catalyst for lawmakers to consider re-examining laws on who makes life-and-death decisions and whether parents should be given a voice in matters now ruled by spouses.

"We've had a long debate about when life begins," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "We haven't had that debate about when life ends. Now there will be debate and discussion in churches and synagogues and state legislatures. This has occasioned a tremendous amount of soul-searching."

That debate seems a certainty. But less certain is whether there will be much impact on next year's congressional elections and the 2008 presidential election.

James Dobson, head of the conservative group Focus on the Family, insisted this week that the political ramifications of Schiavo's death "will ripple for years and years to come." And Randall Terry, a controversial anti-abortion activist and spokesman for Terri Schiavo's family, warned that "there will be hell to pay" for politicians who oppose abortion rights who did not find a way to save Schiavo's life.

But Republican pollster Whit Ayres, reflecting the opinion of most analysts, predicted "minimal political impact" despite the case's high emotions and elevated profile.

"This is such an isolated case where the family simply could not reach a consensus on how a patient ought to be treated and it puts it into a category of the highly unusual," said Ayres, who said he was not surprised to see that polls show public unhappiness with Republican efforts to have the government intrude in Schiavo's case.

"Most Americans don't want elected officials involved in such personal decisions," he said.

"People overwhelmingly thought the Republicans not only were wrong but were making fools of themselves and intervening for political purposes and not out of principle. And that hurts them. That helps to create and reinforce an image problem," Mellman said.

Joe Lockhart, White House press secretary for President Clinton and a Democratic strategist, said Republican actions helped cement a view of a party trying to infuse religious values into the workings of government.

"The Republican Party has increasingly veered toward explicitly pushing for a Christian nation as a way to reflect moral values, and I think this was a huge warning sign for a lot of Americans who will resist that movement," Lockhart said.

Some Republicans hoped that the GOP would benefit because those most angry over Schiavo's death are the party's anti-abortion base and those allied with President Bush's effort to remake the federal judiciary.

But Ayres said those Republicans are likely to be wrong.

"Intense pro-life advocates were already incredibly energized by the 2004 presidential election and gave their votes overwhelmingly to George Bush," he said. He added that anger at federal judicial decisions was "already at a fever pitch."

But that anger, he said, "was driven not by this case" but by decisions on gay marriage, the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, child pornography and the Ten Commandments.

Tad Devine, who worked with Mellman and Lockhart as a top strategist for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, said he sees the Democratic Party energized by the Schiavo case.

But he said the more "consequential" impact may be felt in states and congressional districts that have many moderate voters and a record of shifting allegiances.

"With moderate, mainstream swing voters, they see an issue like this, and they say the president's priorities are not mine – that they don't share the view that this is something he should be in the middle of," Devine said. "It says to them he is beholden to interests which are not their interests, and I think that scares some of them."

One thing analysts will watch is how the Republicans resolve the rift opened between activists opposing abortion and those who support states' rights.

"Republicans have for a long time positioned themselves as a bulwark of states' rights against an intrusive federal government. Yet here they are talking about the most intrusive federal government that anybody has ever imagined and trampling on states rights right and left in the process," Mellman said. "That is a fundamental contradiction that they are going to have to deal with."

But Ayres dismissed the problem. "There's a difference between a disagreement within the family and a split," he said. "Republicans had different views over what should happen in this case. But that doesn't mean it will cause those who disagreed to go vote for Democrats."

»Next Story»