Congress passes ban criminalizing some abortions
By Sue Davis
By a vote of 64 to 34, the Senate passed the
"Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" on Oct. 21. The House of
Representatives had passed it Oct. 2, by a vote of 281 to
142.
One of President George W. Bush's longstanding campaign
promises to the religious right was that he would swiftly sign
such a bill.
But three organizations that champion women's rights have
vowed that as soon as that happens they will file suit to
prevent the law from taking effect.
The three are the Center for Repro ductive Rights, the
Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil
Liberties Union on behalf of the Nat ional Abortion Federation.
NAF represents 400 women's health centers that pro vide more
than half of the 1.2 million abortions performed yearly in this
country.
Milestone against reproductive rights
Passage of the ban marks a milestone to limit women's
reproductive rights. It is remarkable that the federal
government has outlawed a medical procedure, thus preventing
doctors from practicing medicine--and preventing women from
receiving the medical care best suited to their needs. Doctors
found guilty of performing the procedure could serve up to five
years in prison for a criminal felony and pay unspecified
fines.
President Bill Clinton vetoed nearly identical bills twice
during his presidency. In June 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in a five to four decision that similar state bills were
unconstitutional since they did not allow exemptions to protect
the woman's health.
Those who oppose women's right to choose abortion coined the
term "partial-birth" in 1995 to consciously mislead the public
about the medical procedure used for abortions after 21 weeks.
The procedure's correct name is "dilation and extraction"
(D&X).
Using huge blow-ups of late-term fetuses and gruesome
descriptions of the procedure, opponents of choice have
purposely sensationalized it so they can use the ban as a
stepping stone to end legal abortion.
Indeed, reproductive-rights advocates point out that the ban
could be interpreted to outlaw several other procedures used
for abortions after 12 weeks. The vast majority of abortions
occur during the first 12 weeks after conception.
What those who denounce D&X don't say is that the
procedure is rarely used and only under extreme circumstances.
It is estimated that D&X accounts for between 0.004 and 0.1
percent of all abortions. The American Medical Association
policy restricts D&X use to cases where tests show that the
fetus has abnormalities that are incompatible with life, and
when D&X is judged safer than all other methods. (AMA
Policy H5.982)
Of course, any medical procedure, when described in gory
enough detail, seems violent and repulsive--especially if the
pub lic is unaware it is used only under highly restricted
circumstances. Deliber ately keeping the public ignorant about
how rarely the procedure is used and not including an exception
for use when needed to protect a woman's health shows that the
issue has been consciously manipulated to promote the
anti-choice campaign.
Democrats abet Republican agenda
Republicans, who overwhelmingly supported the anti-woman
bill, intend to use it demagogically to win votes in the 2004
election. Sure as shooting, that's Bush's agenda. But Bush also
has a long-term strategy: By the time the case comes before the
Supreme Court he intends to nominate an anti-choice justice who
he expects will change the vote to five to four in favor of the
ban.
It must be pointed out, however, that the ban would not have
been passed if 17 Democrats, most of whom have previously voted
pro-choice, hadn't voted for it. Democrats have been doing this
sort of thing a lot lately--most recently giving Bush the $87
billion he requested for the occupation of Iraq. But the trend
started under President Clinton with passage of bills that
radically limit welfare for poor women and that restrict rights
of people on death row.
Women in the reproductive-rights move ment are itching to
fight back. In fact, Planned Parenthood initiated a call for a
march and rally in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2004.
Some pro-choice groups have announ ced plans to steer the
movement into a dump-Bush, support-the-Democrat direc tion.
But, as the vote on the ban shows, that strategy is a dead end.
Democratic candidates cannot be trusted to support women's
right to choose abortion.
What persuaded the Supreme Court justices to legalize
abortion in 1973? At that time, five Republican appointees
joined two Democratic appointees to vote for the decision. It
was the upsurge of the independent women's liberation movement,
marching in the streets for abortion on demand, that determined
the 1973 ruling.
Just as an independent anti-war movement has emerged to
oppose Bush's pre-emptive wars, so too is an independent
women's movement needed to demand the many essential components
of women's reproductive rights, including the right to choose
abortion.
Reprinted from the Nov. 6, 2003, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page