ne of my closest friends, a prochoice feminist from Los Angeles, is voting for Ralph Nader. She knows that her vote - and the votes of her friends who are similarly inclined - may help George W. Bush upset Al Gore in California. But she doesn't care.
Why is a lifelong Democrat willing to risk throwing California's 54 electoral votes, and thus the presidency, to the Republicans?
Like many Nader supporters, she thinks that the Democrats have not done enough to help the poor, and she feels betrayed by the Clinton-Gore ''sell out'' on welfare reform. She also favors campaign finance reform and doesn't trust the man who solicited money from his White House office and at a Buddhist temple. She knows that Nader will not win, but she hopes that his candidacy will push the Democrats further to the left.
Despite her concern for poverty issues and campaign finance, the most important issue to my friend remains abortion rights. So, why is she willing to risk Republican control of the White House for the next four years? After all, if you believe the propaganda from the National Abortion Rights Action League, George Bush would outlaw abortion and send pregnant women running for the ''back alley.''
The league's charges are, of course, part of another baseless scare campaign by the friends of Al Gore. But prochoice Nader supporters are not frightened. To the contrary, voters like my friend are willing to endure a Bush presidency because, deep down, they understand that, no matter who becomes our next president, abortion will remain legal for the foreseeable future.
Both Bush and Gore accept the inevitability of abortion. But while Gore views the decision to have an abortion as morally insignificant, Bush seeks a society which recognizes the value of human life not yet born.
Although Bush considers himself prolife, he has repeatedly stated that his goal is to ''change people's hearts and minds'' on the subject, not fundamentally alter the law. Bush wants to promote a culture of life - encouraging adoptions, eliminating particularly heinous forms of late-term abortion when the woman's life is not at risk, and generally promoting greater reflection on the matter through informed consent and parental notification policies.
But outlawing abortion outright is not on Bush's agenda.
Indeed, Bush has repeatedly stated that he will impose no litmus test on his appointees to the Supreme Court. My friend believes him. Even more important, she understands that the United States Senate plays a crucial role in the confirmation process, and she believes in the political power of prochoice groups to ''Bork'' any nominee who has ever questioned whether abortion is a constitutional right.
There are other reasons why prochoice voters do not fear Bush's nominees to the high court. Predicting how Supreme Court nominees will vote in some future case is about as reliable as reading Tarot cards. Once confirmed, justices are beholden to no one. As Nader himself noted on ABC's ''This Week,'' Justices David Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor - appointed by Presidents Bush and Reagan respectively - have repeatedly voted to uphold Roe v. Wade. Nader might also have thrown in Republican appointees John Paul Stevens (one of Roe's staunchest defenders) and Anthony Kennedy (who dissented in the partial birth abortion case last term, but who has otherwise supported Roe).
Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supremes sometime in the next millennium - an unlikely prospect - abortion still would not be illegal. Rather, the decision to regulate abortion would be left to the individual states. Informed prochoice voters who are confident in their position are not afraid of debating the issue locally. And they are not afraid of George W. Bush.
Put simply, the thought of a Bush presidency is not as scary to prochoice Nader supporters as acquiescence to the status quo. They can tolerate Bush because they know that he will not alter the basic legal landscape on abortion. A Bush presidency is an OK price to pay for a more populist Democratic Party and campaign finance reform.
People like my friend will not be scared out of voting their principles.
''I know you're probably happy that we might throw the election to Bush,'' she said, ''but I don't really care if Bush wins. This election is not about George Bush or Al Gore. It's about the future.''
Jennifer C. Braceras is an attorney and research fellow at Harvard Law School. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
