Use of Abortion Funds Expanded : Congress: A vote in the House to assist victims of rape and incest marks a dramatic and surprising turnabout in policy.

By WILLIAM J. EATON

Oct. 12, 1989 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — In a dramatic policy turnabout that gave abortion-rights forces an important symbolic victory but risked a presidential veto, the House on Wednesday narrowly approved using public funds to provide abortions for victims of rape and incest.

The House, acting on back-to-back roll-call votes of 216 to 206 and 212 to 207, voted to broaden a provision approved every year since 1981 that permits government funding of abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered.

Already endorsed by the Senate, the expanded funding was approved as part of a $156.7-billion appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services. The bill now must return to the Senate for what is expected to be routine approval. Then it will be sent to President Bush.

Since the provision was reaffirmed by the House only a year ago by a margin of 50 votes, the outcome of Wednesday’s emotional debate surprised the winners as much as the losers.

“Today we have an historic moment--a change in direction,” said Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae), leader of the victorious challengers on an issue that had become a litmus test for organizations opposed to abortion.

Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), author of the original restriction, said that he expects President Bush to veto the bill because it expands abortion rights.

The Administration tried but failed to prevent the adoption of Boxer’s proposal and a similar provision in another appropriations bill for the District of Columbia, which Bush also has threatened to veto.

Bush made no public comment on the measure after Wednesday’s vote, but senior advisers recommended that he veto it, a White House official said.

While the President opposes abortion except in cases involving threats to a mother’s life, rape or incest, he would use federal funds to pay for the procedure only in the case of abortions needed to save a woman’s life.

On Aug. 2, he sent a letter to Congress saying that he would veto a measure appropriating federal funds to pay for abortions other than those in which a continued pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother.

While abortion-rights groups would find it difficult to get the necessary two-thirds vote to override a veto, supporters of the change said that a Bush veto would risk a backlash.

“The political momentum on this issue is so strong that he’d be making a big political mistake,” Boxer told reporters after the vote.

But Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), a stalwart of the anti-abortion movement, declared: “I think we’re feeling the weight of the multibillion-dollar abortion industry.”

New members of Congress and switches of position by some old members apparently accounted for the unexpected turnabout on the limited use of Medicaid funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest.

Twenty Democrats and five Republicans who voted against funding abortions in rape and incest cases in 1988 switched positions in Wednesday’s vote, according to an analysis provided by Boxer’s office. Of 38 new members, 20 voted for the change.

Among Californians, for example, Reps. Glenn M. Anderson (D-San Pedro), Douglas H. Bosco (D-Occidental), Matthew G. Martinez (D-Monterey Park) and Al McCandless (R-Bermuda Dunes) switched their positions and voted in favor of expanded funding. Also, Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Palo Alto), a new member, voted for the change.

Proponents of the change acknowledged that it allowed only a small exception to the general ban on the use of Medicaid or other federal funds for abortions, but they said that the victory was a sign of changing times.

In part, they said, the Supreme Court’s decision last July that gave states more power to curb abortions has galvanized organizations and individuals who favor allowing women to choose whether to have an abortion or not.

“The pro-choice activists are taking names--there are no more free votes for the anti-abortion position,” said Rep. Les AuCoin (D-Ore.), a leader in the struggle to reduce the restriction against use of Medicaid funds for abortion.

“Today’s vote is a change from our high-water mark of 166 votes on an identical motion last year,” AuCoin said. “It shows how far the pro-choice organizations have moved.” Hyde said that the arrival of new members was the major factor in the turnaround. Even so, he said that it had to be considered a setback for the anti-abortion position in the House, traditionally a bulwark of the national anti-abortion movement compared to the Senate.

He also acknowledged that opponents of the “Hyde Amendment” restrictions now are more vocal, in part because of the Supreme Court’s ruling. But he said that he expects the more stringent restriction to prevail.

The House voted twice on the issue for parliamentary reasons. First, Boxer moved that the House recede from the position it took in a Senate-House conference to deny funding in cases of rape or incest. That motion succeeded by a 216-206 vote. On that roll call, 175 Democrats and 41 Republicans prevailed over 134 Republicans and 72 Democrats.

Then a roll call was demanded on Boxer’s motion to concur with a Senate-approved proposal to make Medicaid funds available in these exceptional cases. It passed by a 212-207 vote. There were 173 Democrats and 39 Republicans on the winning side, compared to 136 Republicans and 71 Democrats in the minority.

Debate on the funding issue was emotional. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said that it would be wrong for the House to turn its back on victims of rape and incest and tell them, in effect: “You have not suffered enough so we are going to force you to bear a child that was conceived in hatred and violence.”

On the other side, Hyde said that the government should not provide tax funds for “killing, execution, extermination” of unborn babies. “I bleed for women who are raped and are victims of incest,” he said. “They deserve our love. . . . But don’t kill the innocent” by authorizing abortions.

THE VOTE

All but three members of the California delegation voted along party lines when the House approved, on a 216-206 vote, an amendment to allow welfare abortions for rape and incest victims. The 27 Democrats voted for the amendment, while 15 Republicans voted against it. The three Republicans who voted for the amendment were Tom Campbell, Al McCandless and Bill Thomas.