Partial
Birth Abortion Bans:
Why Does
the Big Lie Continue?
by
Karyn Strickler
Dissident Voice
March 13, 2003
Overturning
Roe v. Wade is only one route to the return of demeaning, deadly back alley
abortions. Anti-choice extremists have used political and physical intimidation
to decrease the number of abortion providers to it's lowest level in the 30
years since Roe, leaving women with very limited access to abortion services.
They're working to run clinics out of business with onerous restrictions. The
U.S. Congress is currently considering the most sophisticated and effective in
a large arsenal of legislative weapons, a so-called "partial birth"
abortion ban.
On May 14, 1998 every
abortion clinic in Wisconsin ceased operations when a federal judge refused to
block a state law banning "partial birth" abortion. Doctors said the
ban was so broad that they could face life imprisonment for performing any
abortion at any stage of pregnancy -- even for those using standard methods
early in pregnancy. Women regained access to abortion services only after
prosecutors promised not to prosecute doctors for first trimester procedures.
Welcome to the reality of so-called "partial birth" abortion bans.
Eight years after the
anti-choice movement first introduced "partial birth" abortion
legislation in the U.S. Congress and state houses across the country, it is
still not recognized for what it is: part of a carefully crafted, national
strategy to ban all abortion. It's easy to understand why anti-choice zealots
portray the bans as narrowly drawn for the limited purpose of stopping a
certain late-term abortion procedure. The mystery is why many pro-choice
leaders and the mainstream media have been slow to expose the reality that
nowhere in most of the bills is there any reference to stage of pregnancy - not
viability, not trimesters nor weeks of gestation. A simple look at the
legislation reveals that calling these bills bans on late-term abortion is
factually inaccurate.
The term "partial
birth" abortion cannot be found in any medical dictionary because it is a
political term that anti-choice zealots made up as part of their public
relations campaign to stigmatize all abortion. When talking about the bans,
advocates use graphic language about late-term abortion that is different from
anything found in the legislation itself. The American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (ACOG), which represents most ob-gyn specialists, has
rejected these bans, which fail "to use recognized medical terminology and
fail to define explicitly the prohibited medical techniques it
criminalizes."
Federal Judge Gerald Rosen,
a George H. W. Bush appointee, permanently enjoined an early Michigan ban
because it was so vague that doctors lacked notice as to what abortion
procedures were banned. A temporary restraining order against legislation in
Arkansas said that the "act applies at any stage of gestation," and
that it defies logic to say that the language applies to only one type of
abortion. Despite evolution in the language defining "partial birth"
abortion since these decisions, a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stenberg
v. Carhart found a Nebraska statute unconstitutional and said that the
definition of "partial birth" abortion remains so broad that it could
outlaw the safest, most common methods of abortion used in the second trimester
of pregnancy.
When voters are shown the
reality of the legislation they reject attempts to ban "partial
birth" abortion. The Center for Reproductive Rights (formerly the Center
for Reproductive Law and Policy) reports that "after voters in Washington,
Maine and Colorado were educated about 'partial birth' abortion, ballot
initiatives on this issue were defeated in all three states." The Center’s
1998 national poll of registered voters revealed that an astonishing 77% were
seriously concerned that such bans allowed no exceptions for serious harm to a
woman's health and 69 % were very troubled that the legislation is deceptive,
banning the safest and most commonly used abortion procedures.
It's time to wake-up to the
reality of this bogus legislation in order to protect the lives, health and
dignity of women seeking safe and legal abortion. So called "partial
birth" abortion bans have passed the U.S. Congress many times over the
past several years and were vetoed by President Bill Clinton. President George
W. Bush reiterated the high priority he places on passage of a "partial
birth" abortion ban in his State of the Union address. He is anxiously
awaiting the arrival of the bill, delivered by the Republican majority and
compliant Democrats in Congress, so that he can make it the law of the land.
Prosecutors and judges appointed by Bush could then interpret the legislation
to broadly ban abortion procedures -- exactly as anti-choice radicals intend.
The pro-choice majority and
its leaders must change the debate on "partial birth" abortion bans,
rejecting the deceptive terms offered by anti-choice extremists since it has no
relation to the content or purpose of the legislation. They must act decisively
with a clear, unified message before this dishonest strategy has the intended
effect of banning all abortion and rendering Roe v. Wade a hollow shell.
Karyn Strickler is the former executive director of the
Maryland affiliate of the National Abortion Rights Action League where she
successfully codified the principles of Roe v. Wade in state law. She was the
founder and executive director of Fifty plus One, where she led an effort to
defeat so-called "partial birth" abortion in Maryland in 1998 and to
educate the media and pro-choice leaders across the country on the issue.
Email: fiftyplusone@erols.com