(Providence, RI) — Senator Lincoln Chafee’s vote against the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court is, quote, “a hollow vote,” according to the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Women. Spokesperson Carolyn Mark complains that Chafee’s vote became meaningless when he decided not to support a filibuster to extend debate and ultimately block a vote. Donna Fishman of the Rhode Island Coalition for Affirmative Action accuses Chafee of a political ploy, and charges the moderate Republican has failed to protect the civil rights of women. And, Cathy Speer of the Rhode Island division of the American Association of University Women accuses Chafee of, quote, “trying to have it both ways.” She says his vote against confirmation doesn’t matter, but he would not support a filibuster where his vote might have mattered.

January 30, 2006

Providence – In the wake of Senator Chafee’s announcement that he will not support a filibuster but will vote against the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, several Rhode Island organizations had mixed reactions. Senator Chafee joins Senator Reed in opposing Judge Alito, but Senator Reed has indicated he will vote to sustain the filibuster..

The Rhode Island National Organization for Women (RI NOW) applauds Senator Reed for putting more than words into action to support the 500,000 plus women living in Rhode Island. Last week Senator Reed took a principled stand against the nomination of Samuel Alito by indicating his intent to vote no on the nomination. Senator Reed then put the full force of his office behind his words by signaling his intention to support the filibuster of a nominee who will most certainly be opposed to protecting the liberties that women have earned through centuries of struggle.

“This nominee is opposed to women’s rights on every count,” Carolyn Mark, RI NOW Vice President for Membership said. “His record is 20 years long. He was the architect of a plan to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has repeatedly ignored privacy rights. He made it infinitely harder to bring claims of sex discrimination and sexual harassment. Senator Chafee’s decision not to use every tool available to senators to extend debate and ultimately block the nomination of Samuel Alito makes his no vote a hollow vote. RI NOW is very clear on this - a no vote does nothing to protect our liberties and our rights, as women and as Rhode Islanders. The filibuster is our only option and it is every senator’s right to use it. Shrinking from a fight will only weaken us for the next one.”

The RI division of the American Association of University Women was also critical of Senator Chafee. “It appears to the American Association of University Women that Senator Chafee is trying to have it both ways,” said Cathy Speer. “He is voting against confirmation when it is clear his vote won’t matter but will not support a filibuster when it might easily matter. With 56 senators already declaring their support for Judge Alito, what good is Senator Chafee’s opposition to Alito if he will not do what it takes to stop him?”

“This is a critical moment in American history, and Senator Chafee has failed us,” said Donna Fishman of the Rhode Island Coalition for Affirmative Action. “A seat on the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. The conservatives now have a lock on this institution, and we can look forward to years of decisions that erode the gains we’ve made on civil rights and social justice over the last three decades. We expected leadership from Senator Chafee. What we got was a political ploy.”

Chafee Criticized For Supporting Supreme Court Nominee

09-22-2005 3:46 AM

(Providence, RI) — The chairman of the Rhode Island Democratic party calls Senator Lincoln Chafee’s support of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts, quote, “blind obedience to the Bush administration.” William Lynch alleges that Chafee’s decision to support Roberts is based on how the Republican party wants him to vote, and not whether he personally believes the nominee should be confirmed. Lynch charges that Chafee has, in his words, “sold his political soul” for a 500-thousand-dollar contribution from the Republican National Committee. Chafee faces a Republican primary challenge next year from Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey. Two Democrats, Secretary of State Matt Brown and former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, are also hoping to unseat the incumbent. The Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Women is also condemning Chafee for his support of Roberts, saying Chafee has made the wrong decision to support a man it characterizes as “anti-choice, anti-civil rights and anti-environment.”

CVS Pharmacist in Coventry refuses to fill woman’s prescription for Plan-B. From the projo:

Pharmacist refuses to fill prescription

A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman decries the delay in a customer’s ability to get her “morning-after pill” contraceptive, but CVS and a state official defend a pharmacist’s right to act on moral beliefs.

01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, August 11, 2005

BY BARBARA POLICHETTI
Journal Staff Writer

CVS pharmacists, acting on their religious or moral beliefs, can refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions as long as they make sure the customer can get the medication when another pharmacist is on duty or at another CVS store, company officials said yesterday.

“Our policy is to fill prescriptions for all customers in a timely manner and to make sure their needs are met and that they are satisfied,” Eileen Howard Dunn, vice president of corporate communications and community relations for CVS, said yesterday. “As an employer, however, we must also accommodate a sincerely held religious conviction that may prevent a pharmacist from dispensing a certain prescription.”

Dunn’s remarks came in response to media reports of a woman who was temporarily denied the “morning-after” contraceptive pill at the CVS pharmacy on Tiogue Avenue in Coventry last Friday.

Dunn, who declined to identify either the patron or the pharmacist, said that the customer pulled up to the store’s drive-up window at about 10 p.m. The pharmacist on duty at the 24-hour store refused to fill the prescription because it conflicted with his or her personal beliefs, Dunn said.

Instead, Dunn said, the customer was given the option of either returning to the store the next morning or having CVS send the prescription to another 24-hour store, in Warwick, where it could be filled immediately.

She said that the customer opted to return to the Coventry store on Saturday and picked up her prescription at about 8 a.m.

Dunn said that situation was handled in compliance with corporate policy and that the customer did not complain to the store or to company headquarters.

The incident has angered leaders of Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island, who called CVS’ actions “criminal.”

“Why are we placing undue obstacles on a woman?” Kathy Kushnir, vice president of external affairs for Planned Parenthood, said. “If a woman presents a legal prescription, it must be filled at that time — period, end of story.

“And even if this is just one case, it’s a major case because we have a woman going from pharmacy to pharmacy trying to fill a valid prescription,” Kushnir said. “That is criminal.”

RECENTLY, the so-called “morning after pill,” sold under the name Plan B, has been the focal point of a national debate over whether pharmacists’ religious or moral concerns take precedence over consumers’ right to fill a prescription.

It is also wrapped up in the debate over abortion, as there is argument over exactly how the pill works. According to the Web site posted by Plan B manufacturer Duramed Pharmaceuticals, the pill contains a hormone found in most birth-control pills and can work in three ways — it may stop the release of an egg from the ovary, it may prevent the uniting of sperm with an egg, and it may also prevent an egg from attaching to the uterus.

Catherine Cordy, executive director of the state Board of Pharmacy, said that there is nothing in Rhode Island law that “clearly spells out when a pharmacist can or cannot” fill a prescription.

Instead, she said, there are standards of practice that give pharmacists the latitude to refuse to dispense a drug based on their “moral, ethical or professional medical judgment.”

“We believe this is appropriate as long as [the prescription] is made reasonably available to the patient through another pharmacist at the same store or the prescription is transferred to another store,” she said.

Similar standards, she said, have been codified by the American Medical Association and the American Pharmacists Association.

Cordy said that although no complaint has been filed regarding last week’s incident at the Coventry CVS, the state board will investigate the matter.

Kushnir said that the delay in filling the woman’s prescription in Coventry last week is particularly egregious because the morning-after pill is time sensitive and must be taken between 72 and 120 hours after unprotected sex.

“The sooner you take it, the more effective it is,” Kushnir said, adding that a pharmacist who refuses to fill the prescription has no way of knowing what the customer’s time constraints are unless they engage in an inappropriate conversation.

“They don’t know when a woman might have unprotected sex or if she had sex against her will,” Kushnir said. “A woman with a valid, legal prescription should not have to have that conversation with her pharmacist . . . and she should not be sitting there in the store doing the math.”

Dunn said that CVS wants its customers to be satisfied, and that pharmacists are strictly prohibited from discussing their personal views with customers.

“We just want to make sure that people know that we are sensitive to this issue and that we are in the business of filling prescriptions for our customers and that is our number-one goal,” she said.

She said that is why the company makes sure a customer gets the medication at another time or location if a pharmacist will not fill a prescription for personal reasons.

Kushnir countered that, “Going from Coventry to Warwick may seem innocuous enough, but given the realities of everyday life, it could be a dangerous burden.”

“My presumption,” she said, “is that if I have a valid prescription, I can walk into any pharmacy and get it filled.”

RI NOW Responds

We believe that any woman should be able to walk into her pharmacy with a valid prescription for emergency contraception (or any contraceptive), and have it filled with no questions asked. Decisions about birth control should be left up to a woman and her doctor and no pharmacist has the right to insert himself or herself into a woman’s private healthcare decisions. Referral to another pharmacist or pharmacy is not a satisfactory remedy because these place an additional burden on the woman seeking the prescription, a burden that is not imposed on any other type of prescription, especially not one that must be taken in a timely manner.

Meaghan Lamarre, Action VP, was interviewed by and appeared on WPRI in response to this issue on August 11. Stay tuned for more response and/or possible action on this issue.

Jim Baron 08/12/2005 Pawtucket Times

PROVIDENCE — Chanting “Save Roe, Vote No,” a handful of abortion rights activists rallied at Kennedy Plaza in protest of President George W. Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We are here today because we believe in women’s reproductive rights,” said Meaghan Lamarre, Action Vice President of Rhode Island National Organization for Women (RI NOW). “We are here today because we recognize that those rights are under attack, and we are here today to fight back.”

With the resignation last month of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Lamarre said, speaking through a bullhorn, “we are in a state of emergency when it comes to abortion rights.”

She called on U.S. Sens. Jack Reed and Lincoln Chafee, whom she referred to as “Rhode Island’s two pro-choice senators,” to vote against Roberts when he comes to the Senate for confirmation.

“Rather than appoint a moderate Justice in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor, President Bush chose to appoint a partisan extremist,” Lamarre said, warning that Roberts would “overturn Roe and send us back to the days of dangerous back-alley abortions.” Roe v. Wade is the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

One of the signs held briefly by a protester carried a drawing of a coathanger inside a red circle with a diagonal line through it, similar to a no-smoking sign.

The rally, held during the afternoon rush hour, was sponsored by the RI Chapter of the National Organization for Women and 2 to1: The Coalition to Preserve Choice.

“It’s a scary time for pro-choice people,” said Hilary Markoe, president of 2 to 1. “Roberts is bad news.”

Markoe said that nationally, Rhode Island is considered “high risk” for outlawing abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, “or so severely restricting it that it would be, in effect, unobtainable.”

Another possibility, she said, is that “within 12 months, it would become a statewide legal battle, which is bad news, considering the Governor is anti-choice, the Senate is anti-choice and the House is anti-choice. If it becomes a legal battle in Rhode Island, pro-choice women are sure to lose.”

If abortion were outlawed in Rhode Island, Markoe said, women in the state would be faced with an array of bad choices:

“They could try to do an abortion themselves, which could lead to death or permanent sterility; they could obtain an illegal abortion, a dangerous and potentially deadly choice; they could keep the unwanted child, which could lead to increased teenaged mothers, child abuse and poverty, or they could travel to get an abortion in a state where abortion wa still legal, which for many women is just unrealistic.”

Jennifer Lawless, a candidate for Congress in the 2nd District, challenging pro-life incumbent James Langevin for the Democratic nomination, declared that, “the right to privacy is under the most ardent attack we have seen in decades.” She asserted that Langevin, the only pro-life legislator in Rhode Island’s Washington DC delegation, “voted against reproductive freedom 26 times.

After the rally, Lawless told The Times that “no one issue” should decide whether someone is qualified for a seat on the court, but that abortion rights should be one of those that is considered.

Lamarre agreed, saying Thursday’s rally was called to highlight abortion rights but that Roberts’ “record is scary in other areas,” including the environment and civil rights.

“His record shows he is in the pocket of conservatives,” Markoe said. “He said he wasn’t a member of the Federalist Society (a conservative lawyer’s group) but he was a member of the steering committee. So right from the get-go, he is a liar.”

©The Pawtucket Times 2005

From Cox.net …

(Providence, RI) - Pro-choice advocates are urging members of the U.S. Senate to vote against any Supreme Court nominee who is likely to help overturn Roe versus Wade. At a Kennedy Plaza rally last evening Meaghan Lamarre and other members of the Rhode Island National Organiation for Women said that includes current Bush nominee John Roberts because he argued against Roe versus Wade in the past. Lamarre says Sandra Day O’Connor represented a key swing vote when the case was last challenged and upheld by a 5 to 4 margin. She says a recently conducted poll shows a majority of Americans want O’Connor’s replacement to be someone who will also uphold Roe versus Wade.

The former governor decries “special-interest groups . . . trying to drum up opposition” to Supreme Court pick John G. Roberts.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

BY LIZ ANDERSON
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE — Former Gov. Lincoln Almond will chair a new Rhode Island-based coalition to champion the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The group’s mission, several members said, is to press the U.S. Senate to give Roberts a fair and timely hearing and an up-or-down vote.

Almond, reached by telephone at his summer home on Cape Cod, said he was recruited by his former director of legislative affairs, Denevan O’Connell, who knew of Almond’s concern that President Bush’s nominee could face a filibuster in the Senate.

“The filibuster has its place, but not with advise and consent,” said Almond, a former U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island.

“I think the president deserves to have a candidate confirmed who is well qualified, and I think a lot of the special-interest groups are out there trying to drum up opposition [to Roberts], and I just don’t think that’s appropriate,” the former governor added.

O’Connell’s government-relations firm — Gildea, O’Connell and Darlington — is being paid to serve as the local contact for Progress for America, a national conservative advocacy group that, according to media reports, expects to spend $18 million promoting Roberts’ candidacy for the high court.

But O’Connell said the new group, Rhode Islanders for Judge Roberts, was not a Progress for America affiliate and would not be receiving financial support from the national group or spending money on a local campaign.

He described the group instead as an “ad hoc” organization put together by a group of people, including former East Providence Senate candidate Lloyd Monroe, who have “overlapping goals” with his client.

Monroe, a Republican and former federal prosecutor, said the group was organized by “a small group of us who decided we wanted to support this nominee.”

“Obviously my involvement arises as a result of talking with other people who are attorneys, and who also have been involved in Republican Party stuff,” he said.

Monroe called Roberts an “exceptionally well-qualified candidate” who “personifies the qualities the American people deserve in a Supreme Court [justice].”

The Rhode Island group, he said, plans to release a list of members soon; Monroe said his hope was to show broad and bipartisan support. He said the steering committee would also include lawyers Eugene Bernardo II, Thomas Wigand and Joseph White, besides himself and Almond.

Bernardo told reporters in an afternoon conference call that he believed the confirmation process should focus on a candidate’s legal intellect, fairness, integrity, temperament, and ability to impartially apply the law.

He said his concern was that Roberts would get caught in “a pernicious rush to demonize whoever the nominee is, for whatever reasons.”

But Almond said that what activities the group would undertake would depend on how Roberts’ candidacy proceeds. Right now, he said, there are indications that the nomination may not face strong Senate opposition.

Meanwhile, another Rhode Island group formed to watch the Supreme Court nomination process — Rhode Islanders for a Fair Judiciary — is warily evaluating the president’s choice.

“We are extremely concerned about the nominee,” said Marti Rosenberg. But she said the group, a coalition of more than 20 advocacy organizations, was still researching Roberts’ background.

“We hope the senators ask the tough questions that really really need to be asked and pursue them until they get the answers,” Rosenberg said.

At least one Rhode Island group in the coalition has formally opposed Roberts’ nomination. The local chapter of the National Organization of Women this week called Roberts “an extremist with no commitment to the basic values of individual and civil rights for which we have fought so hard.”

[Press Release by RINOW July 20, 2005]

Contact: Emily Rochon, 401-965-6081 or Meaghan Lamarre, 401-225-3543
For immediate release.

Last night, President Bush announced the nomination of John G. Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. President Bush began his remarks by commenting that the appointment of a Supreme Court justice is one of the most consequential decisions a President can make. Rhode Island NOW wholeheartedly agrees and that is why we strongly oppose the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts.

As O’Connor’s replacement, Roberts could cast the deciding vote on countless matters of individual rights where O’Connor had been a key vote, often in a 5 to 4 split — issues like abortion and birth control, affirmative action, privacy rights, disability rights, Title IX equal educational opportunity, family and medical leave, health care, environmental protection and dozens of other crucial issues for decades to come. For young women, Roberts’ votes could determine their access to birth control and abortion for their entire reproductive lifetimes.

Among our many concerns, Roberts actively opposes Roe v. Wade and wrote several amicus briefs while a Deputy Solicitor General. He has argued that “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” He also wrote an amicus brief supporting Operation Rescue, arguing in support of individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics.

In addition to his active opposition to a woman’s right to choose, Judge Roberts has also argued to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the scope of the Endangered Species act, challenged affirmative action programs, and argued against Title IX.

We had high hopes for this nomination: we had hoped for another woman to replace Justice O’Connor and we had hoped for a moderate, centrist nominee who would unite the country in these divided times. However, President Bush has chosen an extremist with no commitment to the basic values of individual and civil rights for which we have fought so hard. With this nomination, President Bush has chosen to pick a fight and we intend to fight back.

The Providence Journal (Rhode Island)

July 6, 2005 Wednesday
All Editions

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A-11

LENGTH: 378 words

HEADLINE: Supreme Court vacancy spurs on activists

BYLINE: ELIZABETH GUDRAIS, Journal Staff Writer

BODY:

The leader of a rally in Providence says, “It’s critical that we not allow our court to be taken over by right-wing conservatives.”

PROVIDENCE - Four dozen people gathered yesterday in front of the federal building on Kennedy Plaza to tell Rhode Island’s senators that they’ll be watching when the Senate considers the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy.

“Almost every aspect of our lives is impacted by the decisions that the Supreme Court makes,” the rally’s leader, Karen Malcolm, associate director of Ocean State Action, said into a bullhorn. “It’s critical that we not allow our court to be taken over by right-wing conservatives.”

The demonstrators shouted over the din of honking horns and buses zooming by.

“The Supreme Court is our last line of defense,” said Jennifer Tuttle, program coordinator of the Sierra Club’s Rhode Island chapter, adding that the Bush administration had “the worst environmental record in history.”

“We are the generation born after Roe [v. Wade],” Meaghan Lamarre, president of the National Organization for Women’s Providence chapter, said. “We have never lived in a world where women did not have reproductive choice.”

Her comments gave way to chants of “We won’t go back! We will fight back!”

Frank Ferri, co-chair of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said his concern over the Supreme Court nomination did not center on the issue of same-sex marriage, but rather on a wider protection of individual freedoms. He called for the Senate to hold out for appointment of a justice who would bring “objectivity and moderation” to the court.

The rally’s organizers have dubbed themselves Rhode Islanders for a Fair Judiciary. The coalition also includes the National Council of Jewish Women, the Urban League of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Association of Social Workers-R.I., Rhode Island Parent Information Network, the Poverty Institute at Rhode Island College School of Social Work, Planned Parenthood Rhode Island, 2 to 1: The Coalition to Preserve Choice, Jobs with Justice and the United Service and Allied Workers-R.I.

Senators Jack Reed and Lincoln Chafee “know what they need to do,” state Rep. Joseph S. Almeida, D-Providence, said. “We’re going to put the pressure on.”

LOAD-DATE: July 7, 2005

M. Charles Bakst: Abortion roils Senate contest
01:00 AM EST on Sunday, March 6, 2005

Through the bitterly cold darkness, the voices rang out:
“Right to Life, your name’s a lie,
“You don’t care if women die.”

Dozens of men and women who support abortion rights marched outside as fans of Rep. Jim Langevin, a Democrat who appears poised to run for Republican Linc Chafee’s Senate seat in 2006, gathered Monday for a fundraiser at the Rhode Island Convention Center.

The protesters carried signs that said, “Keep abortion legal.”

And, “I think, therefore I am pro-choice.”

Langevin is “pro-life.”

The pickets want to keep him out of the Senate. After all, there are “pro-choice” alternatives: Secretary of State Matt Brown in a Democratic primary or Chafee in November.

Melody Drnach, president of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Women, told me, “Rhode Island has a long tradition of sending pro-choice senators to represent us in Washington, D.C., and that’s a tradition that we don’t want to see stopped.”

That same day, a New York Times story said a group of wealthy Hollywood donors was raising money to fight a Senate candidacy by Langevin, “the Democratic leadership’s first choice,” because he opposes abortion rights. A letter of theirs, which sought donations to Brown, said, “This is even more important than one precious Senate seat; it is a fight to protect women and families, and a fight for the core and soul of our party.”

When I asked Brown if he agreed with that assertion, he said that it’s important for the party “not to give up on things we believe in” and that Democrats must fight “harder, smarter, more effectively.”

At my request, Brown supplied me a copy of the full text of the letter.

It said Rhode Islanders support women’s reproductive rights, but Langevin and Chafee “do not represent them.”

Actually, Chafee does favor such rights. Indeed, his voting records in the last three years got scores of 100, 90, and 100 from NARAL Pro-Choice America. But the Hollywood letter says that, among other things, he supported Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist “and other anti-choice ideologues to lead the Senate.”

More interestingly, in terms of the Democratic jockeying, the letter says the “radically anti-choice” Langevin opposes abortion “even in cases of the mother’s possible death.”

Actually, Langevin repeatedly has said he would make exceptions to save the mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest.

Brown told me he knew that the Hollywood letter would be going out but he had not seen the text in advance.

Inside the gleaming Convention Center, Langevin had a nice affair that featured beef Wellington, honey Dijon chicken, and two pasta bars.

Though careful to leave himself an out, indications grow that he aims for Senate. That was his mother, June, telling me he’d make a great senator. “As far as I know, he’s running,” she said, but added that he was smart to give himself 30 more days to check out support.

If you listened to Langevin’s speech, you’d have to be a dolt to avoid concluding he hopes to join his close colleague, Democrat Jack Reed, in the Senate: “We can do better for Rhode Island and better for America . . . Rhode Island deserves a senator with the experience, the integrity, and the knowledge to best serve Rhode Island’s working families.” In the congressman’s view, Reed already does that, but, Langevin kept saying, Rhode Islanders deserve two senators who do it.

(Just wondering: What pol is going to say he’s not for working families or he lacks smarts?)

The Senate candidates will debate furiously. Is the liberal Chafee, 51, to be praised because he has the guts to break from the GOP party line? Or condemned because he helps the Republicans control the Senate? Is Langevin, 40, to be lionized because he has experience, or Brown, 35, to be welcomed as a fresh face?

I had some animated conversations at the fundraiser, including a chat with the AFL-CIO’s George Nee, a Democrat.

He said, “My presence here is based on Jimmy [Langevin]’s record as an endorsed AFL-CIO candidate and his record in Congress, with a superb voting record.”

As for Brown, “I think he is way over his head. I don’t think he has any record of accomplishment.”

And Chafee? “I think Senator Chafee has done a very good job in Congress. He’s been very supportive of a lot of labor issues. He’s shown a lot of courage.” Nee loved Chafee’s vote against the Bush tax cuts.

Still, Nee said it’s worth thinking about the fact that Chafee helps the Republicans maintain control of the Senate. “This country is being run in Congress by a bunch of right-wing anti-labor nuts,” Nee said.

So, parroting Nee’s words, I asked, “If the choice is between Matt Brown, who’s in over his head, and a senator who contributes to a lot of right-wing anti-labor nuts running the Senate, who would you support?”

Nee replied, “I don’t know.”

Of course Brown, whose main job prior to becoming secretary of state in 2003 was running the City Year program, doesn’t concede that he’s in over his head. “My experience is working 10 years directly in communities, working with people, taking on the tough problems that they are facing and solving them,” Brown says.

The backdrop of the abortion pickets and the Hollywood letter put a distinctive stamp on the Langevin event. He rejected the idea that the divisiveness of this issue could dissuade him from running for Senate. “Never!” he told me.

Indeed, it was striking, in interviews at the event, to listen to pro-choice Rhode Islanders warn against litmus tests.

Edna Mattson, Democratic state first vice chairwoman, said, “Langevin is a tough hombre that’s paid his dues and gone the route and he’s more than a single-issue candidate.”

Barbara Tannenbaum, who teaches at Brown University, said, “I support a lot of people whose views I don’t entirely agree with.” She called Langevin “honest and caring,” with “great values,” praise she also lavished on Chafee, who once was in her public-speaking class. (She said she doesn’t know Matt Brown.)

Langevin, a quadriplegic, has been criticized by some abortion foes because he backs stem-cell research. But U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat who favors abortion rights, enthusiastically cited Langevin’s stem-cell support and said the congressman’s opposition to abortion makes him very valuable in this regard.

Kennedy declared, “If a pro-choice candidate were to come out and say, ‘I want stem-cell research,’ it won’t have half the weight of a pro-life candidate coming out and saying, ‘I want stem-cell research.’ ”

Former Providence Mayor Joe Paolino, who is helping Langevin raise money, voiced impatience with those who argue that the Democratic Party must mass behind abortion rights. He said of the anti-abortion Langevin:

“It would help the national Democratic Party to have somebody with that background to be in the United States Senate. I think what the national party needs to do is start moderating a lot of their positions and show that, although they may have one belief, they don’t close the door on people who have other beliefs. And I think that’s a problem they’ve had in the past, and that’s why we can’t win red states.”

Brown told me later, “This is one of the bluest states in the country, and I’m running for Senate in Rhode Island, where most people are pro-choice. I also think that the way to win elections is to fight for the things that you believe in.”

Langevin, while embracing the pro-life label, portrays himself as reasonable and pragmatic. After pro-choice Hillary Rodham Clinton called on the two sides to work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies, Langevin wrote to her in agreement.

As he put it:

“When basic sex education, information, and birth control are not available to women, we have failed. When society cannot offer the necessary supports for a woman to keep her baby, such as access to educational opportunities, employment, and child care, we have failed.”

Langevin tells me people don’t come up to him and ask, “What are you doing about the abortion issue?”

Instead, he reports they say:

“What are you doing to help solve the health-care crisis? I can’t pay my health care.”

“Am I going to have Social Security? What is the president trying to do to Social Security? Why is trying to privatize it?”

“How am I going to pay for my prescription drugs?”

“Why isn’t there enough support for education?”

It is not clear how hard Brown will press the abortion issue if Langevin joins the Senate race. “It’s something we disagree on,” Brown says, but, “In the end, like any campaign, it’s going to be about the problems people are having day to day and who can best solve them.”

Fine. So is abortion an issue or isn’t it? “The voters will decide,” Brown says.

Well, will he make an issue of it? “I just told you: It’s something we disagree on.”

Senator Reed, who favors abortion rights, told me the overriding issue facing Rhode Islanders in the 2006 election will be settling on a candidate who advances such issues as health, education, and so on.

Reed said he respects Chafee for often voting with the Democrats, but insisted, “Until we have a Democratic Senate and Democratic House, we are going to have policies that are not helpful to the state of Rhode island.”

And that was Langevin’s line of chatter in his fundraiser speech and in interviews. He told me, “Linc [Chafee] is a nice guy, but I don’t believe he’s done enough to promote the interests of working families.”

In the months ahead, I’ll be curious to see how Chafee, who has been fuzzy about the value to Rhode Island of Republican control and who could face a primary himself, stakes out his territory. How will he demonstrate his concern about the everyday problems of average Rhode Islanders, and how will he document his effectiveness in dealing with them?

And, yes, I’ll be watching to see which candidates decide to bring up abortion and which ones shy from it. Sure, it’s a matter of principle, but it’s also politics, and you can win votes or lose votes on this.

M. Charles Bakst, The Journal’s political columnist, can be reached by e-mail at mbakst [at] projo.com