Democratic doublespeak
IN WASHINGTON, Democrats are challenging the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court because he opposes abortion. In Pennsylvania, those same Democrats are working to help Robert P. Casey Jr. topple Republican Senator Rick Santorum -- because Casey opposes abortion.
When it comes to abortion, Democrats are embracing the position John Kerry tried to establish during the 2004 presidential campaign: for it and against it. The Democratic presidential nominee said he was personally opposed to abortion, but in favor of the basic right protected by Roe v. Wade.
At the time, Republicans scoffed. But the GOP is not immune from the lure of the straddle. Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, a Republican, recently warned that overturning a woman's right to an abortion could hurt the party. As Davis explained to a breakfast gathering, now ''you can be prolife and no one feels that's a threat to someone having to make a difficult decision."
Still, when it comes to taking both sides, it is hard to top the Democrats.
They actively scoped out Casey as their weapon of choice against Santorum; Casey's antiabortion stance, they believed, would strengthen his chances against the much-despised Santorum. Casey, the current state treasurer of Pennsylvania, was recruited by party leaders, including Senator Charles Schumer of New York -- who believes that fealty to the precedent established by Roe is required of any Supreme Court nominee. Prominent prochoice Democrats such as Kerry, DNC chairman Howard Dean, and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York made fund-raising pitches on Casey's behalf.
To add to the irony, Casey is the son of the late Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey, the defendant in a famous abortion rights case -- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The suit challenged a 1989 Pennsylvania law that included a list of restrictions on abortion, including the requirement that a woman notify her husband.
Before the case made it to the Supreme Court, it came before the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Alone on the three-person panel, then-Appeals Court Judge Alito voted in 1991 to let the spousal notification restriction stand. He argued that it did not put an ''undue burden" on the woman. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Today, Alito's dissent in the case is used by Democrats as an example of Alito's antiabortion extremism. These are the same Democrats who back an anti-abortion candidate for the US Senate, one who happens to be related to the defendant in this very case and who, so far, declines to say where he stands on Alito. Asked yesterday whether Casey backs the right protected by Roe, a Casey campaign spokesman answered by saying, ''He is prolife."
How do Democrats juggle their enthusiasm for Casey against their lack of enthusiasm for Alito? Kerry spokesman Setti Warren explained it this way, via e-mail: ''As you know, the Senate hangs in balance, the Democrats need to be in a majority, and Casey is a vote for a Democratic majority that will be good for healthcare, wages, poverty, better war policy . . . whereas the court is being crammed with conservatives to push it to the right."
Of course, that ignores the obvious. As a US senator voting on a Supreme Court nominee, Casey would have to make a choice. That's where everyone, Democrats and Republicans, put behind the straddling and cast a vote.
The expected showdown between Santorum and Casey is billed as the nation's marquee Senate race. Meanwhile, Casey has two underfinanced, lesser-known, and more liberal challengers for the Democratic nomination.
One of those challengers is Chuck Pennacchio, a university professor, who has been pressing Casey to no avail on the Alito nomination. ''What would Bob do?" Pennacchio asked in a press release that challenged Casey to take a stand on Alito. Casey did not respond, according to a spokesperson for Pennacchio.
Santorum's campaign is also pushing Casey on Alito.
In response, Casey said he does not believe in a litmus test.
If Democrats believe a Supreme Court nominee must state a commitment to the precedent set by Roe, why not hold a candidate for US Senate who will vote on a nominee to the same standard?
At a certain point, having it both ways is hypocritical. Voters can tell when you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com. 
