Life is one long emergency for most advocacy groups--whose members are apt tobe united by the belief that they're besieged. To an outsider who lacks theirpolitical passions, however, they seem less besieged than overwrought. So casualsupporters of abortion rights may be unimpressed when the National Organizationfor Women (NOW) declares an official state of emergency in the battle over reproductive choice. The "Emergency Action for Women's Lives," targeting the U.S. Senate, is being launched with an April 22 rally in Washington, D.C. So far, this campaign doesn't seem to have generated much excitement or publicity. But the more you know about threats to choice, the more you share NOW's sense of urgency.
A majority of Americans support abortion rights, but rather queasily, and theanti-abortion and pro-choice movements have been stalemated for several years.Pro-choicers narrowly defeated efforts to criminalize particular abortionprocedures (in the guise of bans on mythical "partial birth" abortions), and theyrecently won a Supreme Court decision striking down the nonconsensual drugtesting of pregnant women. But over the years, restrictions on minors' rightshave been upheld, along with restrictions on the use of public funds to financeabortions and on the rights of publicly funded doctors even to talk aboutabortion with their patients.
Attacks on the basic constitutional right to obtain an abortion outlined by Roe v. Wade have failed, just barely, but access to abortion has declined: Violence against abortion providers is a strong disincentive to doctors, and many are no longer being trained to perform abortions anyway. In Massachusetts a major Boston hospital has shut down a late-term abortion program that served women who needed to terminate pregnancy after 14 weeks because of serious health problems. "This is reminiscent of the problems of 30 years ago," the chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center told The BostonGlobe. Anti-abortion activists have managed to make the legality of abortion irrelevant for many women by making the availability of abortion scarce.
This bad situation is about to get worse. Encouraged by the ascension ofGeorge W. Bush, anti-abortion activists are renewing their efforts to erodereproductive rights incrementally. They're already tasting victory: The newpresident, grateful and obliged to opponents of abortion rights, moved swiftly todeny U.S. aid to international family-planning agencies that merely provideabortion counseling. President Bush also favors stringently limiting access tomifepristone (RU-486), which the FDA recently approved; and Secretary of Healthand Human Services Tommy Thompson has signaled his willingness to order a newreview of the drug. Along with other anti-abortion bills recently reintroduced byRepublicans, Congress is considering placing limits on RU-486.
The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act exemplifies the strategy of destroying reproductive choice without ever attacking it directly. Drafted with the assistance of the National Right to Life Committee and introduced in Congress by two Republicans, Representative Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, this bill would make it a federal crime to injure or kill a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman, at any stage of fetal development (and even if the attacker were unaware of the pregnancy). It's not a novel concept. Fetal-protection laws are in place in a majority of states, although some consist of sentence-enhancement schemes in cases involving fetal injury or death--an approach that expresses the public's particular abhorrence for attacks on pregnant women without necessarily undermining their reproductive rights.
But protecting pregnant women is not what anti-abortion advocates in Congresshave in mind. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is intended to confer personhoodand independent legal rights upon a fetus. In other words, it would incorporatethe theoretical underpinning of the anti-abortion movement into federal law.
The Teen Endangerment Act, introduced by Republican Congresswoman IleanaRos-Lehtinen of Florida, also favors the presumed interests of the fetus over theinterests of the pregnant woman (or, in this case, pregnant girl). It would makefelons out of family members such as grandmothers, aunts, or older sisters whotransport a minor across state lines for an abortion if the girl cannot obtainparental or judicial permission for an abortion in her home state.
Encouraging communication between parents and kids is a worthy goal, but lawslike this do not further it. Rates of parental involvement in teen abortions areabout the same in states with parental-consent laws as they are in states withoutsuch laws. (Pregnant teens usually do seek the help of at least one parent, andthe rate of parental involvement in abortions is especially high: 90 percent forgirls 14 and younger.) What will be the effect of a federal law that punishesfamily members other than parents for helping pregnant teenagers? This is one lawthat threatens to live up to its title: If it's enacted, the Teen EndangermentAct surely will endanger teens by encouraging them to obtain illegal abortions,continue high-risk pregnancies, or seek help from hostile, violence-proneparents. (One-third of teenage girls who do not talk to their parents aboutabortions have previously been the victims of family violence.)
Battles over anti-abortion measures like these are important, but they are mereskirmishes compared to the upcoming fight over the next Supreme Court nominee.Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been crucial in maintaining the 54 majorityin favor of Roe, is expected to retire soon. Bush will, no doubt, nominate a judge opposed to abortion rights, and if he or she is confirmed, Roe v.Wade will be overruled as soon as the next case challenging it wends its way to the Court.
The crusade to make abortions illegal and unsafe (they are unlikely ever to berare) does pose political risks for Republicans. If outright abortionprohibitions and a reversal of Roe v. Wade were popular, Bush would not have cloaked his support for them during the campaign. Female voters deprived of all abortion rights could become a more potent political force than are male voters who fear being deprived of their guns. If reproductive choice falls victim to the Bush administration, the administration could in turn fall victim to reproductive choice. But once revoked, rights are not quickly or easily restored; and the Supreme Court outlives the administrations that shape it. A Bush Court would survive, while women and girls would die from illegal abortions. There are surely better ways to win elections.
