When it comes to abortion, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter is walking a fine line.
He is against abortion rights – except in instances of rape or incest or where the life of the mother is at stake. He has characterized himself as “pro-life” but has promised that his agenda does not include trying to change abortion laws. He believes that human life begins sometime soon after conception, but he supports emergency contraception.
Not surprisingly, his nuanced stance against abortion has drawn fire from his own party. But he is also facing opposition from people with whom he would seem to have some common ground.
“It’s the price someone pays who tries to be honest about their willingness to separate their personal values from what they will do in public office,” said John Straayer, a political-science professor at Colorado State University. “Ritter’s got a problem – alienating both sides – and he has to find a way to negotiate an issue that has become unfortunately divisive and explosive in American politics.”
For instance, Phillip Hendrix, a director of Colorado Right to Life and its chair of governmental affairs, said Ritter cannot portray himself as against abortion rights.
“You can’t be pro-life with exceptions,” he said.
Still, Coloradans in general seem receptive to Ritter and his positions. A recent poll by The Denver Post showed that in a hypothetical matchup between Ritter and the best-known Republican candidate, Congressman Bob Beauprez, Ritter led by 6 percentage points, with 43 percent to Beauprez’s 37 percent and 20 percent undecided. The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
“Dialogue of conscience”
Much like U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar in 2004, Ritter, a Roman Catholic, also can expect to be scrutinized for how his position compares with Catholic teachings. The nation’s Catholic bishops approved a statement nearly two years ago in Denver making clear that Catholic politicians are morally obligated to work against legalized abortion, “lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.”
The Archdiocese of Denver was not available for comment Tuesday.
Ritter, who says he has reached his positions on abortion after a “dialogue of conscience,” is not troubled by some who may see them as contradictory. His views, he says, have been shaped throughout his life, as a Catholic, during his three-year mission in Africa managing a children’s nutrition center in Zambia, as a prosecutor and as a family man.
“It’s something that comes to me as a matter of conscience about the beginning of human life,” he said. “I just can’t come around to the right to choose.”
His positions, while unsatisfactory to many who want black-and-white answers, are not that far off from voters across the country, some political observers point out.
While the two political parties often represent the most extreme positions on the issue, the public is somewhere in the middle, believing some abortions should be banned completely and regulations should apply to others.
“Most Americans are deeply ambivalent about abortion,” said Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University professor and co-author of “Between Two Absolutes: Public ap and the Politics of Abortion.” “Most of the public thinks there should be fewer abortions, and that some aren’t justified, but ultimately they don’t think the government should tell people what to do.”
Voter decision preferred
National polls conducted in the past year indicate that the majority of Americans oppose outlawing abortion but do support restrictions on the practice.
Although governors usually don’t have much direct involvement in abortion legislation, a weakening or overturning of Roe vs. Wade could leave the issue up to the states to decide.
If the Supreme Court overturns that key decision recognizing abortion rights, Ritter’s campaign has said that he would prefer that any question about legalizing abortion in Colorado go directly to voters rather than through the legislative process, which would put the final decision on his desk.
Asked in an interview last week if, in that instance, he would sign a bill to ban abortion, Ritter replied: “I’m not answering that question. I have come to appreciate how nuanced this whole thing can be and how dangerous it can be to answer the hypothetical.”
Last June, however, he told the political website Coloradopols.com that he would sign the bill “only if it provides protections for women who are victims of rape or incest or to protect the life of the mother.”
Ritter’s failure to answer the question now may cause political headaches for him later.
“Better off answering”
In Virginia’s race for governor last year, Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore refused in a debate to say whether he would sign a bill banning abortion in cases of rape or incest or where it would save the mother’s life. He too called the issue “hypothetical.” Voters, politicians and newspaper editorials dogged him, demanding an answer.
His loss to Democrat Tim Kaine, also a Catholic who opposes abortion rights, was not determined by that issue, said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. He said voters in Virginia, like in the rest of the country, have moved abortion down on their list of concerns, behind such matters as health care, education and transportation.
But in politics, trying to sidestep issues, especially controversial ones, often brings the candidate unwanted attention.
“He would be better off answering it and moving on, especially because the abortion issue will be less critical in the final outcome than people now think,” Sabato said.
Staff writer Karen Crummy can be reached at 303-820-1594 or kcrummy@denverpost.com.
“It’s something that comes to me as a matter of conscience about the beginning of human life. I just can’t come around to the right to choose.”
Bill Ritter, explaining his views on abortion
