Women's Rights

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Women's Rights Archives page.

Abortion: the Single Issue with the Multiple Meanings

Our Congress has recently made some important decisions about abortion. On June 4, 2003, the House of Representatives passed a bill that bans what abortion opponents call “partial birth abortion" and others call “late term abortions."

But what is this late stage procedure which is actually done in very few cases, as everyone agrees. Pro-Life activists use their term to refer to various medical procedures that they feel are unnecessarily harmful to the fetus. The term does not refer to one specific procedure, but rather to a series of procedures that physicians carry out when performing an abortion. Pro-Choice advocates criticize the ambiguity of this term and of the bill, which they fear will be used to limit various abortion procedures.

The Supreme Court ruled similar state legislation passed in Nebraska to be unconstitutional because it included vague language that may have contradicted Roe V. Wade. Pro-choice proponents hope that the Supreme Court will overturn this legislation in the same way.

A bi-partisan alternative

An alternative bill was proposed by the House Democratic Whip, Steny H. Hoyer and Republican Representative James Greenwood. This bill banned abortions of viable fetuses, which means that the fetus is far enough along that it can survive without the mother. This bill focused on the when instead of the how of abortion because it limited only very late-term abortions and not the methods that doctors use to perform abortions. This proposal was defeated 287-133; the majority felt that these restrictions were not sufficient.

When it becomes law, this bill could possibly limit abortions at various stages of pregnancy, which is precisely why activists, pro and con are squared off against each other. Many people on both sides of the issue acknowledge that this is a step toward limiting reproductive rights.

Many doctors against bill

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is opposed to legislation that limits abortion procedures. Along with many other types of physicians, they fear that this bill sets a dangerous precedent. They claim that Congress is limiting both patient’s choices and doctors’ choices, and that physicians should choose how to perform a procedure, not legislators.

George Bush in favor of bill

Bush, who holds religious beliefs about contraception, sex education, and abortion, has announced that he will sign the bill and make it law once the House and the Senate present him with the final version. The bill is currently “in conference," which means that legislators are working out the differences between the House and the Senate versions. The Senate version includes an Amendment that supports Roe V. Wade. It is likely that this Amendment will be deleted from the final version.

Bush makes history

This will be the first time that a president has agreed to change abortion law. Similar bills made it to President Clinton’s desk, but he vetoed them; he stated that they did not adequately protect the health of the mother.

Pro-Choice advocates say that this bill is no different. There is no “health exception" in the bill, meaning that a doctor may not perform a late term abortion even if she or he determines that the mother’s health is at risk.

The bill’s writers and supporters explain that to have a health exception is a loophole. They say that it would permit doctors to determine a pregnancy to be “at risk" because it is a threat to a woman’s mental health, not just her physical health. They claim that doctors will abuse their power and declare women who are able to deliver to be “at risk." However, the bill does allow doctors to perform l“partial birth abortions" if the mother’s life is in danger.

A matter of the heart --- and of the language

As we know, abortion is a hotly contested issue that people on both sides are passionate about. The controversy over this bill is a clash of deep-rooted personal philosophies, reflected in the use of language. Not only Pro-Choice and Pro-Life (both positive values), but “late term" versus “partial birth". He/she who controls the words is a long way towards controlling the debate.

Those in favor of the bill believe that birth begins at conception and that the fetus should be protected, as would any citizen of this country. They find the various medical procedures that are performed during an abortion to be inhumane.

Those against the bill are also worried about human rights. They feel that this bill is an attempt to chip away not only at a woman’s right to choose, a right that will eventually crumble if this type of legislation continues to fly through Congress. There are others who see this as not just an abortion issue, but also an attack on everyone’s right to privacy. Pro-Choice advocates claim that the government, which is primarily made up of men, is unjustly telling women what to do with their bodies and their lives.

Privacy is at issue – and checks and balances

Privacy advocates group this issue with the concerns about government watching the books we read and the e-mails we send.

When is government overstepping its bounds? Does majority rule allow the majority to legislate personal behavior of adults?

This is why these questions end up in the courts. Those who believe that the majority can rule whenever it can muster the votes also say that the courts should not be activists and legislate through their interpretation of the Constitution.

Those who believe that majorities can be wrong turn to the courts as designed from the beginning of our country to protect the minority from abuse of power of both the Executive and Legislative branches.

This is why the philosophy of those who wish to be judges is so critical to the relationship of all of us to each other through our shared community life represented by government.

Article Posted on: 6/14/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top