On Roe's 30th Anniversary, Reproductive Freedom Faces Its Most Hostile Climate in Washington in Years
Thirty years after we secured the right to choose, we continue to battle for its survival. And even though many speculate that we may see one or two Supreme Court resignations this year, it will not take a decision by the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade to make legal abortion a thing of the past. Congress is poised to enact a wide variety of restrictions that will place abortion out of reach for many American women. It is also poised to attack access to contraception and sex education.
Here are some of the most dangerous measures we anticipate fighting this Congress:
Ban on Safe and Common Abortion Procedures
The so-called ""Partial-Birth Abortion"" Ban Act is yet another attempt to ban safe and common abortion procedures used throughout pregnancy. Congress has passed such bans several times before, but they were twice vetoed by President Clinton. There is no doubt that President Bush would sign such a ban into law.
The Supreme Court has spoken unequivocally on ""partial-birth abortion"" bans. In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), the Court made clear that such bans pose serious threats to women's health; ban not one abortion procedure but the safest and most common second-trimester abortions; and violate the Constitution. The proposed federal ban is every bit as dangerous, broad, and unconstitutional. It bans the safest and most common abortion methods used in the second trimester of pregnancy, well before fetal viability (the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb, usually around the beginning of the third trimester). And the bill lacks any exception whatsoever to protect women's health -- a requirement that the Supreme Court has held is constitutionally required.
The House passed this dangerous bill during the last session of Congress, but the Senate did not take up the measure. We expect the measure to be the first piece of anti-choice legislation to be considered this year.
For more information and to find out how you can help, go to: /ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=10780&c=143
Teen Endangerment Act
The Teen Endangerment Act (called the ""Child Custody Protection Act"" by its proponents) would make it a federal crime for any person other than a parent to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion unless the minor had already fulfilled the requirements of her home state's parental involvement law. This bill is not only unconstitutional, it is also harmful to minors.
The bill would endanger the health of pregnant teens by discouraging them from turning to trusted adults for help and would instead force them to travel alone if they sought care out of state. Experience tells us that family communication simply cannot be legislated. While studies have found that a majority of young women who are pregnant and seeking an abortion already involve a parent in their decision, other teens have valid reasons for not doing so. One third of teenagers who do not tell their parents about a pregnancy have already been the victims of family violence -- physical, emotional, and sexual abuse -- and fear it will recur.
The House passed this bill in 1999 and 2002. We expect it to come up again this Congress and will need to mobilize vocal opposition to defeat it.
For more information and to find out how you can help, go to: /cpredirect/16413
Broad Federal Refusal Clause
Called the ""Abortion Non-Discrimination Act"" by proponents, this bill would allow a wide range of health care entities -- from hospitals to insurance companies to HMOs -- to refuse to provide or even give information regarding abortion services. The measure is nothing less than a broad and dangerous federal ""refusal clause."" Sometimes called ""conscience clauses,"" refusal clauses permit a person or entity to refuse to provide reproductive health services or information about such services based on religious or other objections.
Although proponents have misleadingly characterized this bill as a mere ""clarification"" of existing law, it would in fact radically alter current law by providing broad license for health care entities to avoid basic legal requirements imposed by all levels of government. It would, for example, permit health care institutions to ignore public health laws that require them to provide pregnant women complete information about their reproductive health options. It could also allow hospitals to turn away women who need emergency abortions because they are hemorrhaging, experiencing heart failure, or suffering other grave complications of pregnancy, despite federal laws mandating such care in medical emergencies. The measure would protect the institutional objections of health plans, insurers, and hospital conglomerates over and above the health care decisions and needs of individual patients.
This measure passed the House in 2002, and we expect it to be a high priority for anti-choice forces in the upcoming Congress.
For more information and to find out how you can help, go to: /cpredirect/16550
Bill to Elevate Fetal Rights
Called the ""Unborn Victims of Violence Act"" by its sponsors, this bill would grant independent legal status to a fetus under federal law by making it a crime for an individual to cause the death of or injury to a ""child in utero"" at any stage of development. This legislation would be the first federal law to recognize a fetus as an independent victim of a crime, with legal rights distinct from those of the pregnant woman who has been harmed by a violent act. It would thus dramatically alter the existing legal framework by elevating the fetus to an unprecedented status in federal law, undermining the very foundation of the right to choose abortion.
The bill passed the House in 2001 with supporters rejecting alternatives that would have protected pregnant women from violence and appropriately punished violent offenders without undermining reproductive freedom. We expect the bill's proponents to push for passage again this Congress. Given President Bush's stated support for the measure, the bill will become law unless we defeat it in the Senate.
For more information and to find out how you can help, go to: /cpredirect/16412
Other Likely Threats
We expect Congress to attack reproductive freedom in a variety of other ways this year. For example, Congress is likely to consider measures requiring minors to obtain parental consent to receive contraception in the federally funded Title X program (which provides family planning information to low-income individuals), banning emergency contraception in school based health centers, barring organizations that perform abortions with their own funds from receiving federal family planning dollars, and significantly increasing funding for abstinence-only until marriage education, which prohibits teaching about the benefits of contraception. As these provisions demonstrate, the upcoming assaults on reproductive freedom will go far beyond restrictions on abortion to include attacks on contraception and health information.
As even this short report suggests, the 30th Anniversary of Roe is a time of grave danger for reproductive freedom. While many of these restrictions have been considered in Congress before, we now face a political climate in which anti-choice forces are stronger than at any time in recent memory. Blocking these dangerous measures will therefore require more resolve than ever and even more participation from our pro-choice supporters.
Sign up for the ACLU's Action List to help us protect your right to reproductive freedom.