POLITICS AND PRINCIPLE

By NANCY GIBBS

When the House of Representatives voted last week to overturn President Clinton's veto of the ban on partial-birth abortion, some opponents saw more politics than principle behind the gesture. How better to portray Clinton as an extremist than by reminding voters that he had defended a practice that big majorities find repugnant? What better gift to give Bob Dole, as he searches for the wedge issues that might give him traction with the conservative and Roman Catholic voters who should form the base of his support?

As the Senate takes up the motion to override this week, both sides are poised for a fight. Pro-choice activists never miss a chance to warn their supporters about the risk of further restricting abortion--especially if the Republicans control Congress and Dole lands in the White House. The pro-life army sees the override fight as a chance to brandish pictures of dismembered infants only weeks before the election. "It's all a matter of timing," said a top Dole aide. "As the veto override gets closer, the church and Christian groups will get more involved. It's a sleeping giant."

That case is hard to make when even abortion opponents admit that few hospitals perform third-trimester abortions and fewer still the controversial procedure in which a doctor removes a fetus feetfirst, then makes an incision in the baby's head to suck out the brain, collapse the skull and extract the head from the birth canal. In many such abortions, the fetus is so severely deformed or the pregnancy so complicated that carrying the child to term would threaten the life or health of the mother. Here lies the core of the fight: Clinton supports a ban if it allows exceptions to protect the mother's health, but the current bill allows only cases in which her life is at stake.

Though no one has reliable figures, experts estimate that partial-birth abortion accounts for perhaps 600 of the 1.5 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year. Its rarity, however, takes nothing away from its horror, and all along, the symbolic importance of the issue has driven both sides of the debate. The ban that passed earlier this year was the first attempt by Congress to outlaw a specific abortion procedure in the 23 years since the Supreme Court upheld abortion rights in Roe v. Wade.

Since then, both sides have spent millions on TV and newspaper ads, mass mailings, brochures and demonstrations. Two weeks ago, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops held a prayer vigil in Washington; the group has sent out 8 million postcards for people to pass on to their Representatives. Meanwhile, the Child Protection Fund last week unveiled its own TV campaign, including an ad in which a woman asks, "What does it say about President Clinton that he would allow this to happen?"

Clinton has worked hard to win over Catholic voters, so the re-emergence of the issue complicates his campaign; he may have co-opted crime, welfare and budget balancing, but he can't turn into a Republican on this subject without losing a key constituency--the women who account for his double-digit lead. In that context, White House officials take comfort in the fact that the Senate will probably sustain the veto without their having to play hardball. "We respect that people have differences on this issue," says an aide. "We're not going out there twisting arms and cutting deals."

--Reported by Ann Blackman and Karen Tumulty/Washington

With reporting by ANN BLACKMAN AND KAREN TUMULTY/WASHINGTON