How abortion could creep into next year’s governor’s race

By Jon Ralston

Sunday, Oct. 25, 2009 | 2 a.m.

I suppose my belief that the abortion question was settled in Nevada was naive.

That issue will never be put to rest because too many groups want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, employ it as a litmus test for political support or insist on unlimited access to abortion. And, perhaps most of all, because too many candidates find it useful to brandish it as a weapon to taint opponents.

Richard Ziser, who succeeded in having gay marriage outlawed in Nevada through the initiative process, thus protecting all the marriages under siege from such horrors, has a new ballot proposition to grant “personhood” to fetuses. A 1990 referendum embedded the state’s abortion rights statute into law, and Ziser wants to do an end-around that by employing the due process clause of the federal Constitution to grant the unborn rights. (The initiative also would try to prevent end-of-life decisions from being left in the hands of individuals — or those horrific, mythic death panels — but that part is not relevant here.)

Just by presenting the initiative to the secretary of state’s office, Ziser has thrust the issue back into the political colloquy on the eve of Campaign 2010, raising questions that have made one gubernatorial candidate uncomfortable and, if it qualifies, could alter the dynamic for November of next year.

Abortion actually popped up as an issue in the last governor’s race — almost four years to the day it reappeared this cycle — when an anti-abortion Mormon Democrat, James Gibson, twisted himself into a pretzel on the question of what he would do should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

This year, upon the release of Ziser’s petition, the Reno Gazette-Journal approached the gubernatorial and U.S. Senate hopefuls to elicit their reactions. Most dodged reporter Anjeanette Damon, but the two front-runners in each party answered — sort of.

Ex-judge and GOP front-runner Brian Sandoval and County Commissioner and Democratic front-runner Rory Reid both said they oppose the initiative. But Sandoval favors abortion rights, so that is not surprising. More interesting was when Damon pressed for Reid’s position on abortion.

“We’re not going to get into labels,” a spokesman for Reid told Damon. “He supports the Nevada law, which is what voters chose. That is enough for most people to make their decision (on whom to support for governor).”

On Friday I twice unsuccessfully tried to elicit an answer from the Reid campaign as to whether Reid, who is Mormon, favors or opposes abortion rights. I was referred back to the quote Damon received.

I understand labels of any kind crush nuance, whether it is pro-life or pro-choice or liberal or conservative. But with abortion, people generally oppose it because of religious beliefs or support it because of women’s rights beliefs. The shades of gray — federal funding, late-term abortions, parental notification — often are side issues that distract from the simple fact that people either consider it murder or they don’t.

(That is why I have never understood the exception for rape, incest or life of the mother. If it’s the taking of a life, why have any exceptions, except for political reasons?)

Reid’s dodge is silly and gives Sandoval an opening if they face each other after the June primary. Reid should fear that a moderate Hispanic Republican could garner crossover votes. But if Sandoval can highlight Reid’s position or his refusal to say what it is, that makes the case stronger for him with Democrats and independents.

The best — and most forthright — answer I have seen from an anti-abortion candidate since the 1990 statute was embedded came from Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt when she ran for governor four years ago. “I am a Catholic,” she told Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison. “On a personal level, I’m against abortion. But I do not feel that elected officials should be pushing their personal beliefs on the public. As an elected official, I’d be a pro-choice Republican.”

You might ask why this is relevant because another initiative would be required to overturn the 1990 result. Two reasons, at least. First, a governor with the bully pulpit could sway the public on a referendum. Second, governors sometimes like to use their office as a steppingstone to the U.S. Senate, where his or her abortion position would be even more germane.

Ziser may only hope to increase conservative turnout in 2010 — as if the right will need any more incentive than the obviously socialistic — or is it fascistic? or Nixonian? or Hitlerian? — policies of the current administration. But he also may have injected a dormant issue into a fascinating governor’s race.

Abortion as a political issue, like death and taxes, never disappears.

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program “Face to Face With Jon Ralston” on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the daily e-mail newsletter “RalstonFlash.com.” His column for the Las Vegas Sun appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or at [email protected].