-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the May 29, 1997
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------

Democrats cave in on abortion rights

Senate fight ignored women's real lives

By Sue Davis

On May 20, the U.S. Senate passed the so-called partial-birth abortion bill, which President Bill Clinton vetoed twice last year, by a vote of 64 to 36. The bill would ban a type of the procedure known medically as intact dilation and evacuation.

According to medical experts, only about 1 percent of all abortions performed in this country are late-term-that is, performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy. An even tinier fraction-about one-tenth of 1 percent-of all abortions necessitate the particular procedure in question.

This bill is the latest attempt by anti-choice forces- particularly the Republican Party, the National "Right-to-Life" Committee, the Catholic Church and the Christian Coalition-to restrict women's access to abortion. Right-wing forces are pushing the ban with a propaganda campaign that uses a medically inaccurate, highly sensationalized description of a rarely used procedure to demonize the women who desperately need it.

Why? The purpose is to drive a wedge against women's right to choose abortion, creating an opening to chip away further at that right with the goal of eventually outlawing all abortions.

Attacking women's right to abortion is part of the drive to turn back the social advances made in the struggle for women's liberation. This is one front in the ruling class's war against the working class and all the oppressed, which also includes other anti-woman measures-most notably the welfare-repeal law that President Bill Clinton signed last August.

Democrats, AMA cave in to right

Columnist Ellen Goodman has aptly labeled the "partial-birth abortion" bill the "partial-truth" bill because of its cynical anti-woman agenda.

The American Medical Association had opposed the bill. However, on May 19 the AMA reversed course and endorsed it- with slight modifications that apparently provide more protection from prosecution for doctors.

Most medical experts, including the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, still contend that the bill would interfere with a doctor's right to determine the best medical procedure for a patient. They also point out that viability-the time when a fetus can live outside the mother's body-varies with each pregnancy and cannot be fixed at a particular week.

On May 15 the Senate defeated two weak attempts to head off the bill and provide some protection for women who require late-term abortions. Both bills had been proposed by Democrats. Anti-abortion forces were elated because Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle used anti-choice language in his bill.

Right-wing ideologue and former Reagan administration official William Bennett commented approvingly that instead of talking about a woman's "right to choose, Daschle was saying we should protect the life of a viable fetus."

Daschle further capitulated to the right on May 20 when he dropped his pro-choice position entirely and voted for the ban. He called intact dilation and evacuation an "abhorrent procedure," at the same time making the strange argument that the only way to test the bill's constitutionality would be to pass it.

However, the Supreme Court had already imposed limits on late-term abortions in its 1973 ruling legalizing abortion. In fact, many in the women's movement at the time were highly critical of Roe vs. Wade, demanding that no restrictions whatsoever should be imposed on women's access to abortion.

President Cinton has said he would veto this bill again if the Senate passed it. But now that Daschle-who is supposed to be Clinton's top lieutenant in Congress-has caved in to the right, and other key Democrats have followed him, it is possible that anti-woman forces may be able to muster the 67 votes needed to override a veto.

In that case, if he exercises his veto, Clinton could emerge as a pro-choice hero, but the Democratic Party would have betrayed the organized women's movement with which it has traditionally been allied.

Women's real lives

What's missing from this struggle over women's rights that is taking place in the halls of government? Any recognition of the real-life, nitty-gritty factors that force women to seek late-term abortions.

Some women-for instance, teenagers who haven't become used to their regular menstrual cycles or menopausal women whose cycles have become irregular-don't realize they're pregnant until several months have gone by.

Then there are women living in rural areas or in the 86 percent of U.S. counties without abortion providers. They have to track down the services, then come up with the cost of transportation, food and lodging to get to the doctor.

Other women discover, through recent advances in ultrasound technology or genetic testing, that the pregnancy they had wanted is terribly flawed and carrying it to term would diminish their chances for successfully giving birth in the future.

Others who seek late-term abortions include incest survivors, recovering alcoholics or drug users, battered women newly separated from their abusers, and welfare recipients who have an extremely hard time scraping together the money.

What's needed more urgently now than ever is a resurgence of an independent women's movement, not tied to the Democratic Party, which can truly fight for the needs of all working and oppressed women. No matter what happens in Washington, the only way women will ultimately win their rights is through mass struggle.

- END -

(Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if source is cited. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@workers.org. For subscription info send message to: info@workers.org. Web: http://www.workers.org)

Copyright © 1997 workers.org