 |
|
Toronto Star (Canada), January 29, 2005 EDITORIAL: Abortion
anxiety mounts in U.S. Last Sunday, two Americans, politically poles apart, used the same rarely heard phrase while speaking on the same polarizing subject - women's right to abortion. One, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, was celebrating the 32nd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion, while the other, President George W. Bush, was deploring it. But both talked about the need to find "common ground" in the ongoing war over which should take legal precedence: Women's rights or the rights of the unborn. Does a common ground exist? Not in America, and certainly not now, say pro-choice advocates. The long-held dream of the religious right to recriminalize abortion - even in cases of rape or incest - is on the brink of being realized in Bush's second term. And that means hunkering down for a bitter and protracted fight to stop it, not searching for shared goals. The current U.S. Supreme Court has been in place for 10 years and is known to support the Roe v. Wade decision by a slim 5-4 margin. Any change in its makeup could open the door to a court challenge pro-life groups have vowed immediately to launch. If the decision is overturned, at least 38 states would quickly outlaw abortion, say pro-choice supporters. "We're working on the assumption that there will be three changes at the court (two retirements and the likely demise of the gravely ill chief justice, William Rehnquist)," says Ted Miller of the National Abortion Rights Action League, known as NARAL Pro-Choice. Whenever there is a vacancy, there is an enormous amount of public attention because these are lifetime appointments, says Miller. "We're letting the Senate and the president know that we'll mount an aggressive campaign to stop the appointment of extremist justices." It's not only the U.S. Supreme Court that concerns the two largest pro-choice groups, NARAL and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. They say the last four years have seen a steady chipping-away of women's reproductive freedom: Some 200 federal court judges were appointed by Bush during his first four years in office, only two of whom said they accept existing abortion rights. Funding for abortion was withdrawn from women who depend on the federal government for health care - those on Medicaid, women in the military, federal employees, Native American women and even Peace Corps volunteers. An onslaught of anti-abortion measures has been put before Congress. One current bill would require abortion providers to read out loud a script telling women who are 20 weeks or more pregnant that the procedure could cause pain to the fetus. Another bill under consideration would make it a crime for anyone, including a family member, to take a minor to another state for a termination. Meanwhile, abstinence-only sex-education programs for young people aged 9 to 18 are being funded in increasing amounts by the Republican administration. The 69 programs in 25 states are budgeted this year at $179 million (U.S.). In December, a congressional staff analysis found that the programs used "false, misleading, or distorted information." For example: that abortion can lead to sterility; that touching a person's genitals can result in pregnancy; and that a six-week old fetus is a "thinking person." According to New York pro-choice activist Laura Kaminker, the situation in the U.S. has deteriorated dangerously. "Because of anti-choice terrorism and political actions, thousands of doctors have stopped providing abortions and thousands of towns have stopped leasing space to abortion providers. Nearly 80 per cent of American women live in a county with no access. Without access, legal abortion is meaningless." The latest incident to appall, if not surprise, the pro-choice movement is the Food and Drug Administration's delay in approving the use of emergency contraception without a doctor's prescription. Its own panel of scientists and physicians has recommended the "morning-after pill" be made available by pharmacists as a means of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies - an estimated 1.7 million a year in the U.S., 800,000 of them resulting in abortion. Advocates also argue that up to 22,000 of the 25,000 pregnancies that result from rape each year could also be prevented. The FDA announcement was expected Jan. 20, the same day as Bush's inauguration and three days before last weekend's pro-life rally in Washington. It never happened. "Despite overwhelming support, emergency contraception fell victim to the president and the extremists," says Miller at NARAL. "Science should not trump politics. But the FDA agreed to delay." And there has been no word since. "It is truly scary what it happening down there," says Kim Luton, president of CARAL, the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League. "Because of all the new restrictions, it's as if Roe v. Wade has already been overturned. While the issue here is subject to periodic flare-ups, a large majority of Canadians - about 80 per cent - has supported a woman's right to choose since the Supreme Court struck down the abortion law in 1988. In the U.S., a sizeable minority - 40 per cent in most polls - has vehemently opposed that right. The situation there has always required constant monitoring, says Luton. "But the pro-choice movement did keep vigilant. They just couldn't foresee such a sea change in an administration 32 years after the court decision." The situation differs in other ways between the two countries, she says, noting that in the U.S., two-thirds of abortions are performed in clinics, one-third in hospitals, while the reverse occurs with Canada's 114,000 annual procedures. Moreover, the morning-after medication so contentious in the U.S. is likely to be available without a prescription here within the year as a way of preventing many of them. Health Canada last year removed levonorgestrel, intended for use as an emergency contraceptive, from Schedule F. This will allow the drug to be available without a prescription from a pharmacist. Quebec and Vancouver pharmacists are already dispensing the pills in pilot projects, says Jamie Slater at Planned Parenthood Federation of Toronto. And a study done by Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre last year found that Ontario pharmacists supported the move as a way of preventing many of Canada's 114,000 annual abortions. "Right now with a prescription required, there is a real barrier for women in isolated areas of the country being able to get to a doctor in time," says Slater. "Pharmacists will have to trained but the study found they were comfortable with the idea. Many of them are excited to play a part in decreasing unplanned pregnancies and abortions." Logically, shouldn't that be the shared goal, the "common ground," on which America's warring camps could meet? "Yes," says NARAL's Ted Miller, "but the onus is on them to come over." No bets on that happening any time soon. << Toronto Star -- 1/29/05 >>
Home About Us Newsletters News Archives Donate
|