NOW calls for spring mobilization
Congressional abortion ban indicates need for struggle
By Sue Davis
The Republican majority in the House of
Representatives, along with many Democrats, passed a law on
June 4 to ban so-called "partial-birth abortions" and fine or
jail doctors who perform them. The Senate passed a similar bill
in March.
President Bill Clinton had vetoed such legislation twice. In
2000 the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 that a similar state law
was unconstitutional. But representatives defied the Supreme
Court decision. They further defiled women's rights by voting
down an amendment that would have permitted the procedure--if a
doctor determined it was necessary--to avert "serious adverse
health consequences" to the pregnant woman.
It didn't matter to them that the procedure, known medically
as "intact dilation and extraction," accounts for only 0.1
percent of all abortions performed in this country.
It didn't matter to them that it's only performed as a
desperate last-ditch effort to save the mother's life, end a
pregnancy of a severely malformed fetus, or keep a frightened
teen from bearing a child she doesn't want. It didn't matter to
them that this ban will affect the most vulnerable, needy,
poor, young women.
"This bill is really an abortion procedures ban," stressed
National Organi zation for Women President Kim Gandy noted. She
added that the bill is "purposely worded so vaguely that it
could criminalize even some of the safest and most common
abortion procedures after 12 weeks and well before fetal
viability."
Anti-choice zealots, with President George W. Bush and
Attorney General John Ashcroft leading the pack, see this bill
as a giant stepping-stone toward overturning Roe vs. Wade, the
1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
They know that a group of pro-choice organizations plans to
file suit to stop the legislation. But by the time the case
gets to the Supreme Court, they are counting on Bush having
appointed an anti-choice justice to overturn safe, legal,
accessible abortion. Their strategy was the focus of a lead
article in the June 8 New York Times.
But what they're not anticipating in their cynical
calculation is the role of struggle.
NOW calls for massive spring mobilization
In response to the growing attempts to override and overturn
Roe vs. Wade, the National Organization for Women issued a call
on June 10 to build for a mass mobilization on April 25, 2004,
in defense of women's right to choose.
A massive turnout of women and all who support their right
to make critical life decisions without the intervention of the
state or the church is just what's needed.
But as important as the forces such a march could mobilize,
the struggle to defend choice will be impacted by the political
orientation of such a demonstration.
Will pro-choice forces be led by the demand: "Anyone but
Bush in 2004"?
Channeling the independent struggle for women's rights into
the Democratic Party is marching the movement into a dead
end.
Many pro-choice activists fear that Bush's impending
nominations to the Supreme Court will shift the highest court
in the land to the right, further imperiling Roe vs. Wade.
But the Supreme Court is also vulnerable to a rising tide of
angry protest. The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling was not a gift from
on high. At that time, six of the nine justices were Republican
appointees--four of them put in by conservative Republican
Richard Nixon. Yet five of these Republican appointees voted to
legalize abortion. And one of the two judges who voted against
the decision was a Kennedy appointee.
Despite the overall political character of the Supreme Court
at the time, the ruling class felt the enormous pressure from
the grass-roots movement in the streets and made a concession
to it.
Today, the belief that a Democrat in the White House will
automatically protect Roe vs. Wade and women's right to choose
is disempowering to the movement that can defend women's
rights.
Even though President Bill Clinton twice vetoed similar bans
on so-called "partial-birth abortions" like the bill that just
passed Congress, it was during his administration that women's
health clinics faced a siege of terror.
And his administration also dismantled the welfare
system---a devastating blow to the health and welfare of
working class and poor women. Could a Republican have carried
out such a brutal measure without mass protests?
Clinton could only get away with slashing this safety net
for the most vulnerable women during a period of economic
upturn because so many in the mass movement were working to get
the Democrats re-elected instead of organizing an independent
movement to confront whichever party of big business was
running the Oval Office.
And Republicans weren't alone in getting this bill banning a
form of abortion through Congress. Democrats voted alongside
them.
Only a movement that isn't beholden to either party of big
business can secure the rights needed by all sectors of the
working class and oppressed.
Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, noted
the irony of congressional legislation that curtails women's
rights domestically while the U.S. claims to be waging wars for
"democracy" abroad. This war drive is being used to try to
frighten the population into accepting a reactionary agenda
that undermines progress that has been made on all social
issues.
The demand for women's rights will be strengthened by
linking it to the broad, multi-faceted movement against
"endless" Pentagon war that both parties in Congress voted to
endorse and to fund.
Reprinted from the June 19, 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