News Categories



Capitol Hill Blue is a not-for-profit, non-commercial experiment in on-line journalism published as an information resource for our readers. All material is © 2006 Capitol Hill Blue. For more information, please check out our FAQ. We take your privacy seriously at Capitol Hill Blue.
CHB Home / Half-Shell Home/ Print This Page / Email this page

States provide battlefield for abortion war

March 8, 2006 03:11 AM / FUBAR .
By MARGARET TALEV
McClatchy Newspapers

First a celebration, then a fight over strategy, now a campaign on two fronts.

That's how the nation's anti-abortion movement has reacted since South Dakota last month became the first state among 10 contenders to pass a ban on abortion in order to test a shifting U.S. Supreme Court.

Many pro-life leaders disagree with South Dakota's timing. They say even with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito now on the court, a 5-4 majority to uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark case from 1973 that blocked states from outlawing abortion, likely remains. They are instead focusing on legislation less likely to divide voters or to be thrown out in court _ urging ultrasounds before an abortion, or regulating medical building and equipment standards in ways that could shutter clinics unable to get up to code.

Even so, conservative lawmakers in several other states are feeling emboldened and in some cases challenged to press ahead with full-scale bans of their own.

A House committee in Mississippi _ a state that has only one remaining abortion clinic _ has amended legislation that had focused on ultrasounds into a measure to ban abortions with exceptions for the life of the mother but not for cases of rape or incest.

A Missouri state senator, Jason Crowell, has proposed two measures to take before voters this fall _ one criminalizing abortion except to save a woman's life, the other amending the state constitution to prohibit abortion.

"If not now, when? If not us, who?" Crowell, who was elected to the Senate in 2004 on an anti-abortion platform, said in a telephone interview.

"My answer is, now is the time, and Missouri should be the 'Show-Me' state, not the 'Let's-see-what-happens' state," he said.

"I think a lot of individuals are saying, 'This is moving too fast,' " Crowell said. "Well, there's nine other states moving this forward. There is no more time to wait."

Lawmakers in Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, Oklahoma, and West Virginia also are looking at abortion bans. Advocates say cases can take years to move through the courts, and some are betting President Bush will get one more vacancy before his term ends in less than three years.

But in these states, many of the same dynamics are playing out, with the legislation stalled in committees or kept off the legislatures' floors because leaders _ even those who oppose abortion _ think it's too soon.

In Kentucky, more than one-third of the House has signed on to a proposed ban. But groups like the Kentucky Right to Life Association are withholding support.

"It's premature, we don't have the votes on the Supreme Court right now," said the state affiliate's executive director, Margie Montgomery. "We're busy with these other bills that are very important and do-able."

The more cautious advocates say a test case shouldn't be put in motion until the court includes at least one more justice with an anti-abortion background. If Roe v. Wade is upheld again it could make it harder to knock down anytime soon, they argue.

And a ban movement now could inject cash and energy into the abortion rights movement before the truly pivotal nomination battle, should Justice John Paul Stevens or another colleague who has supported abortion rights retire from the court before Bush leaves office.

"In some ways it's a wakeup call," said Jackie Payne of the abortion rights group Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "We may be able to motivate people who are with us to voice their opinion and take it back."

While fears of such an outcome are creating resistance from within anti-abortion circles to outright challenges to Roe v. Wade, dozens of smaller-scale anti-abortion bills perhaps more likely to be sustained in court are barreling ahead in many states.

These include so-called informed consent requirements, such as directing doctors to tell women that fetuses may feel pain. Oklahoma is among the states considering requiring abortion doctors to offer patients ultrasounds, which, in more advanced cases, would confront them with an image of the fetus, or the sound of a heartbeat, before they went forward with terminating their pregnancies.

"As people see 3-D ultrasounds, people say, 'Oh that really is a baby, it's not just a tumor or a clump of tissue,'" said Oklahoma state Rep. Kevin Calvey, who is sponsoring such a measure. "People wake up and go, 'Oh my gosh, this is what's being killed?'"

Several states are discussing heightening existing requirements for parental notification or consent. Or imposing targeted regulatory restrictions that could force abortion clinics to be shuttered, at least temporarily. Such an effort has been building into a legislative standoff in Indiana and is under consideration in 10 additional states.

Planned Parenthood's Payne said such legislation is in some ways more threatening to her advocacy than a proposed abortion ban that is likely to be struck down.

"What's getting all the attention is we have South Dakota putting out this direct frontal attack," Payne said. "I'm actually just as concerned about what they're doing every day on the ground. If you restrict access to the point there is no one who can or will do it for you, you've taken the right away. And that's becoming the reality for women in many states in this country."

Last year, she said, the political climate in Missouri drove one of three clinics out of business. South Dakota's one remaining clinic flies providers in from Minnesota. At least seven states already have "trigger" legislation on the books that automatically would prohibit abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court does one day overrule Roe v. Wade. In Ohio, Payne said, a court ruling last week put a clinic in jeopardy, saying it would have to shut down if no area hospital would engage in a transfer agreement with it.

"These regulations are every day making abortion inaccessible," she said.

There are anti-abortion activists who aren't convinced Roberts and Alito would join with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to overturn Roe just yet, regardless of whether they had a fifth vote. But both Alito and Roberts do have backgrounds that reflect anti-abortion sentiments. And abortion opponents believe the two new justices would be more likely in general to limit abortion rights that retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Alito decades ago wrote about his personal belief that abortion is unconstitutional, and Roberts advocated against government support for abortion when he worked for the Reagan administration. At the same time, both _ especially Roberts _ have spoken about their respect for precedent, and the idea that the longer a high court decision is on the books and the more times it is upheld, the more compelling the reason should be if it is overturned.

Other recent developments also favor abortion opponents: the high court's unanimous ruling this week that abortion clinic protesters can't be prosecuted under a federal racketeering law, and the court's agreement to consider a partial-birth abortion case later this year.

Another frustration for abortion rights supporters: Some of the same lawmakers across the country who want to limit abortions also oppose expanding welfare, providing government funded contraception, making emergency contraception available or teaching about contraception in sex education classes.

"I personally see it as a contradiction but I don't think that movement sees it as a contradiction," said Betty Thompson, spokeswoman and former administrator for the Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi's sole abortion provider.

About 1.3 million abortions occur each year in the United States, a number that has been slowly but steadily declining, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which advocates abortion rights and contraception but whose statistics are cited across ideological lines. But abortions actually are increasing among black and Latino women.

"Economics drives a lot of it, that women can not afford good health care or more children. That drives a lot of it in Mississippi," Thompson said

A Guttmacher Institute survey, however, shows some conservative states have joined traditionally liberal states in improving access to family planning.

Alaska, South Carolina and Alabama joined California and New York as the states in which government does the most, through regulations and subsidies, to help women avoid unintended pregnancy. Nebraska, North Dakota, Indiana, Ohio and Utah were ranked least helpful.


© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue

Comments

It's never the wrong time to do something right. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional--yet another example of the feds grabbing power that belongs to the states, the fact that it violates unborn children's Fifth Amendment rights aside. I don't know where Blackmun and his gang got "privacy" from...about the only reference to privacy in the Constitution is the Fourth Amendment.

I'd like to add that pro-lifers should NOT pin their hopes on Bush and his lying bunch. Bush, who's supposed to be pro-life, doesn't like the action South Dakota took! And I don't buy into his "culture of life" nonsense. I guess we should have a culture of honesty before we make shoplifting illegal, huh George?

I say do what's right regardless of what people think.

Posted by Alexandra at March 8, 2006 07:37 AM

This whole issue might soon explode in everyone's face. I've posted a couple recent polling charts here. America wants freedom to choose abortion. They may agree to restrictions which prevent on demand abortions, but they don't want them outlawed.

Posted by spiiderweb at March 8, 2006 08:39 AM

Do what's right? Yeah. And are you a foster parent? Have you taken in child brought into this world by unfit parents? Do you advocate more federal aid to help mothers who can't afford a child? National health care? More readily available constraceptives? Or are you one of the many (and so many of them MEN) who could care less about that blessed little child once it's born, who stick their heads in the sand & refuse to admit that the 'just say no' to sex hasn't a hope in hell of working, and who maybe think that women are just way too uppity right now & that if you could just go back to the 50s where they could be kept 'barefoot & pregnant' or else celibate, sterile workaholics ...
The majority of people in this country (women BTW are a majority) SUPPORT abortion rights. So ANY legislations that try to overturn Roe vs Wade is going against the majority opinion in the US. Period.

Posted by Teleri at March 8, 2006 10:48 AM

Politicos are jumping on the band wagon; if they only realized that it's never leaving the station. The book "Freakonamics" will explain why the Lawnorder people want abortion on demand, especially for the poor. It has nothing to do with racism, "Bull" Bennett's ill informed remarks not with standing.

Posted by Geralrd Sutliff at March 8, 2006 12:46 PM

I am a woman and I'm opposed to abortion. I don't care what the "majority" thinks is right...what's right can't be decided by a vote. Interestingly enough, the majority of people who are pro-abortion are MEN. They figure, hey, it gets them out of responsibility--and the woman gets stuck with the physical and emotional consequences of abortion. So legalized abortion actually exploits women when you look at it that way, and to be pro-"choice" is to be anti-woman.

Even if one thinks a woman has a right to kill her child, one has to admit that the STATES should decide, not the feds. It's not only a right-to-life issue, it's a states' rights issue as well.

Abstinence training DOES work. Planned Parenthood doesn't like it because there goes their profits. What is involved in sex "education"? I mean, is there really a lot more than Tab A + Slot B = Baby? When you teach kids about birth control, you're giving your stamp of approval on them going out and "having fun." Plus, NO contraceptive is 100% effective--so the more you have sex, the greater chance a baby's going to come along. Planned Parenthood knows it and counts on it--if, or rather WHEN the contraceptive fails, they'll sell you an abortion.

When you teach abstinence, you're letting kids know that you don't approve of them going wild. I was taught abstinence by my mother. My husband was taught it too. And it worked!

Without the abortion "safety net," I'd think that kids would start thinking with the right head!

Posted by Alexandra at March 8, 2006 01:03 PM

By the time the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce realizes how much damage was done by their Republican state government it will be way too late to do anything to stop it. Voters remember in November. Pissed off women never forget!

Posted by Mike DiMatteo at March 8, 2006 01:04 PM

Abortions should be a rarity but Sonograms, pictures of aborted fetuses, et al won't stop abortions. It may occur when politicians, pro-life advocates and churches decide to include "after birth' financial support to mothers since most abortions are due to economics

It takes money to raise a child to adulthood so when pro-lifers of both parties make that part of their mission statements, we'll know they are serious and no just trying to garner votes through polarization.

Posted by Camus at March 8, 2006 01:33 PM

To oppose sex education and contraceptions does not contradict opposition to abortion. It fits right in because based on their religion an unwanted pregnancy is the punishment the woman deserves.

It is all about sex,after birth none of these people fell any sense of responsibility and are comfortable to cut any finanncial help.

None of the celebate priests speaks out for the homeless and hungry children. At least I am not aware of it.

Also states like South Dakota have high infant mortality rates, but so-called pro-lifers are silent.

Bottomline is, they hate women, it is about sex and has nothing, nothing to do with life.

Posted by lysistrata at March 8, 2006 02:39 PM

Alexandra, what right do you have to impose your believes on other people?

I don't tell you you must live by my believes and you can't tell me to live by your believes. It is your religion and we still do have seperation of church and state.

I don't believe a cluster of cells, which feeds on the woman's body is a total human.

I do believe to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnacy to full term is as bad as forcing her to have an abortion.

It is up to the woman and no one else, you don't take any responsibility, so stay out of her life.

Posted by lysistrata at March 8, 2006 02:49 PM

"Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional."

Oh, really? Just where in the Constitution did you read that? The Constitution with which I'm familiar was written to limit the powers of government while protecting the rights of individuals. No one has a right to tell another what they can and cannot do with or to their body. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is tantamount to involuntary servitude, which IS unconstitutional.


"Interestingly enough, the majority of people who are pro-abortion are MEN."

I disagree. Women are not forced to have abortions by men. They make that choice for their own reasons.


"So legalized abortion actually exploits women when you look at it that way, and to be pro-'choice' is to be anti-woman."

What a crock! To force a woman to continue a pregnancy that she does not want, no matter the reason, is "anti-woman."


"Even if one thinks a woman has a right to kill her child . . ."

A zygote is not a "child." An embryo is not a "child." A fetus is not a "child."

". . . one has to admit that the STATES should decide, not the feds."

Another crock! The WOMAN should decide - no one else.

"It's not only a right-to-life issue, it's a states' rights issue as well."

It's a womens' rights issue, not a "right to life" issue. How many so-called right to lifers are against war, the "death penalty," eating the flesh of other species, etc.? This is not about a "right to life." This is about making women second-class citizens, with no control over their own bodies and lives.

Posted by YY4Me at March 8, 2006 04:12 PM

Way to go YY4Me! Good rebuttal. I might add that a right is not a right if it depends on which state you live in. A woman's right to chose must apply to the entire country, not just some states.

Posted by Michela at March 8, 2006 05:08 PM

This shows a degeneration, not just of women's rights, but,ALL RIGHTS. I belong to NARAL, because I believe in individual rights. I happen to be a man, a Vietnam combat veteran, who has seen war. What a woman wants to do with her repoduction rights is her business Equal pay for equal work. Let's move into a new Century where we regain our civil rights and liberties.

Posted by lickspittle at March 8, 2006 05:57 PM

Lets call a spade a spade these are real babies who are being murdered by doctors at a time when they could easily be alive and thrive if they were not actively killed by the doctors and nurses involved in these operations. I have worked with nurses who are tormented out of their minds by the thought of forgetting what sort of service they are to provide this time, kill the live delivered baby or perform CPR to get it breathing. Doctors have more autonomy to provide one service or the other instead of going crazy and being no good for anyone. But for folks with fewer options who need a job to feed their families it can be a challenge in the heat of the moment and results in night terrors and guilt and madness. The other side is that it is very hard to convince a new Dad who is under financial pressure that he is rightly afraid of that last week the murder of his child by a doctor is all OK and that now this week when he needs to provide the impossible livelihood he can not do the same thing himself. This is the real cause of the demise of so many young children at the hands of their father figure care givers, and also lends a voice of legitimacy to the child abuse short of murder persistent in our modern America.

Posted by smile meadow at March 8, 2006 08:19 PM

kill the live delivered baby is over the top. Nobody kills a live delivered baby.

Posted by lysistrata at March 8, 2006 09:28 PM

Someone in this debate said that the "measure of a society is how it treats its lowest members" or something very much like that. My feeling is that it is not the babies that are truly America's "lowest" members: it is women. Think about it. The whole premise of anti-abortion regulations is to "protect the children", but who is protecting the children who are impregnated by forced rape and incest? Why is an unborn child more valuable than the 15-year old who is forced to bear her father's child? Abortion may not be without consequences, but increasing the rights of the unborn should not supercede the rights of the women who are already here.

Posted by Julia at March 8, 2006 09:43 PM

Supporters of abstinence-only "sex education" haul out their personal anecdotes of "success", but the statistics tell a different story: This type of non-education creates unprepared young people who will delay intercourse for 18 months on the average. But during that interval, they are much more likely to participate in other sexual acts that they don't consider to be "real sex". For example, oral and anal sex (100 times more likely to transmit HIV!). They are also much more unlikely to use condoms when they do have sex. As a result, they end up catching up and even slightly surpassing their educated peers in terms of sexually transmitted disease incidents. If you want to claim that "works", then you just have your head buried in the sand.

Remember the Boy Scout Motto: Be Prepared

The best sex ed approach includes all the information available on anatomy, normal sexual and reproductive functions, abnormal behavior, diseases and other perils to avoid, conception and contraception. Ignorance never benefits anybody. It just makes your child more likely to be victimized.

Posted by pondering_it_all at March 8, 2006 10:34 PM

I am a woman and I believe in the right to abortion.
A woman's body can abort naturally, with no outside help, if her body decides the fetus isn't fit to come to term. Should she be punished? She will be, under this law. There are women all over the country who are in jail because their babies were stillborn, through no fault of their own.
The FACT that these laws make NO exception for rape or incest is VERY important. A rapist's sperm has more rights than the woman? I don't think so.
"Just say No to sex" doesn't work without telling teenagers why. Without sex education, without teaching them how their bodies function, it doesn't work.
Forcing children to grow up in utter poverty, because the father has run off and the mother can't afford the child, is not right. It is not fair to the child, or anyone around them.
Why doesn't the government focus on placing foster children in good homes, or promoting adoption? They don't and they won't.

Posted by Kimberly at March 9, 2006 07:12 AM

What in the world do you think partial birth abortion is? Talk to someone who cares for the 15 year old who has one of these procedures begun on her and is then left to her own devices to deal with this impossible result all on her own.

Posted by smile meadow at March 9, 2006 09:54 PM

This same battle was fought nearly a century ago by nurse Margaret Saenger whose mother was killed by 17 pregnancies, and Mary Ware Daring whose third child nearly killed her and sent her husband into adultery. The religious fundies they fought even opposed pain killers for labor pains. Imagine caesarians without anesthesia! Women need to talk graphically about the countless horrors like marriage-ruining smelly bladder and bowel tears that require adult diapers! 30-50% of all U.S. moms suffer such incontinence--why do you think so many Repugs cheat and divorce? Moreover, fundies ignore their own coffee, alcohol, tobacco, mercury, radiation, and age-induced miscarriages that, by their own standards, deserve last rites and funeral masses. To drive that hypocrisy home, we should go through their garbage and stage public funerals for the tampons of know-it-all "prolifers." I called one such Catholic biddy and asked about funerals for her "sanitary napkin babies." She exploded and hung up. What's good for the petri dish is good for the tampon. Randall Terry needs to be harrassed about his adultery and his new broodmare's coffee abortions. I suggested years ago to an embryo stem cell research advocate that "prolifers" would rescue petri dishes instead of real people from burning buildings. Saddam should have surrounded Bagdad with fertility clinic petri dishes to avert the Shock and Awe! Dems should introduce "gotcha laws"--like criminalizing fathers, pols, and priests whose imposed childbirths maim or murder mothers. Imagine politicians, pedophile priests, and the wife-dumping adulterer Randall Terry doing life for every woman killed in childbirth??? Imagine adulterous Repug Congressman Don Sherwood doing 5 years because his wife wears Depends diapers from childbirth! Viagra should be banned for single men. Married users should have their names published, in case their wives aren't getting any, but the mistresses are. Viagra prescriptions should come with waiting periods and pamphlets with ugly pictures of breast and face cancers caused by pregnancy. Pro-choicers should hire cheater decoys to catch adulterous Repugs on camera. Dems should ban non-procreative ejaculations by anti-choice men and coffee-drinking by their ugly broodmares. Vagina cop Judy Brown of American Life League should be harrassed about her funding by pedophile priests, marching orders by Nazi genocider Pope Paul VI who funded the slaughter of 500,000 non-Catholic "sinner" Serb Christians in 1942, and her slut daughter. Dems should ban pain killers for Repug childbirths because that's how "God punished Eve." Women should go on a global birth strike to avoid childbirth bladder and bowel injuries, related cancers, and to thwart pedophile priests. Send "prolifers" to jail for the next woman murdered by childbirth!

Posted by Heil Mary at March 10, 2006 09:32 PM

Post a comment

(Comments are moderated and will not be posted if they contain insults, flaming of other posters, profanity or libelous comments. Comments that are off topic will be deleted. Thanks for waiting.)


Top of Page

RECENT STORIES

Sign up for our Daily Newsletter mailing list!