|
Women's Rights
What's New? - Archive
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.
Since Women's Rights is in many ways an umbrella issue, WomenMatter will highlight related updates from other Life Issue areas here:
"The Issue is in Our Hearts": Congress' Sentiments on Abortion
On October 21, 2003, the Senate floor erupted with debates over a fiery issue: abortion. The deliberations concluded with a vote that passed S3, or the Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion Bill. Seventeen Democratic Senators joined forty-seven Republicans to create broad support of the conference report, which was approved 64-34. Democrats voting for the bill include two women Senators, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and the Minority Leader, Tom Daschle (D-SD).
This vote is the final Congressional step needed for the bill to become a law. The legislation passed in both the House and the Senate, and then went on to committee where the two versions were reconciled. The House then voted on and passed the newest version, or "conference report," and now, the Senate has done the same. President Bush will certainly sign the bill into law.
However, it is likely that the Supreme Court will declare the law unconstitutional. A Nebraska state law barring the abortion procedure known as "partial-birth" to advocates and "dilation and evacuation" to opponents was struck down by the Court in 2000. The Nebraska law and the law passed by Congress are similar if not the same.
Courting History
The Supreme Court ruled the state law unconstitutional for two reasons: imprecise language and women's health. The majority of justices felt that the law uses vague language to ban a variety of abortion procedures, not just the dilation and evacuation (D&E) method.
Of course, vague language is not unconstitutional. Yet, the majority of justices ruled that the law was unspecific and could have been interpreted as a ban on abortion procedures beyond the D&E method. Therefore, the law placed "an 'undue burden' on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability" (Supreme Court Opinion, Breyer, Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000).
In essence, this means that the law violated the rights granted by Roe V. Wade, which secures a woman's right to end a pregnancy before the fetus can live independently. As long as Roe V. Wade stands, the government cannot interfere with first-trimester abortions.
Language Land
It is not surprising that the language of Nebraska's abortion law is at issue. In general, the abortion question reveals the qualities of language, as well as the potency of it. Each camp uses language as a sharp tool to carve public thinking. The terms "pro-life," "pro-choice," "anti-choice," and "pro-abortion" are the most obvious examples of this. Pro-choicers say pro-lifers are "anti-choice," and pro-lifers call pro-choicers "pro-abortion." Of course, life and choice are both valued principles, so each side uses the words "life" and "choice" to further its cause and weaken its opponent.
It would be accurate to say that the struggle over abortion is a war of words. The use of the term "partial-birth abortion" is a strategic maneuver by the pro-life movement. The words themselves appall the listener or reader. It is difficult to utter the phrase, "I support partial-birth abortion," because the term is, itself, shocking.
Pro-choice groups criticize the term as inexact and misleading. They claim that although attempting to ban a medical procedure, the pro-life movement is using a term that the medical community does not itself use.
In the Senate debate, both sides used the words, "rights," "compassion," "protection," "unconscionable," "immoral," and, of course, "choice" and "life." The meanings of these and other words have shifted. They are now intermeshed with the idea of abortion itself, and due to overuse (and perhaps misuse), some of them have become meaningless.
Because the Supreme Court uses the terms "dilation and extraction," "D&E," and "D&X" (they are used interchangeably) when discussing this issue, and because words are so tactical and manipulative in this debate, the acronym "D&E" will be used here to discuss the procedure in question. In addition, S3 will be used to refer to the bill passed in Congress.
Health Matters
The Supreme Court's second reason for declaring the Nebraska law unconstitutional is concern for women's health. The matter of women's health was the unstable centerpiece of the Senate debate.
The opposition
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) claimed that she and other bill opponents would be happy to pass a ban on all late-term abortions if the law included a health exception. S3 includes no such exception. This means that a doctor cannot use the D&E method if a patient's health is at risk, even if the doctor believes that D&E is the safest procedure. As Boxer pointed out, this is the first time that Congress has ever banned a medical procedure. Under this law, doctors can go to jail for performing D&E.
S3's opponents believe that the bill puts women's health at risk. By telling doctors what they can and cannot do, government is intruding upon the doctor/patient relationship. If D&E is banned, they say, women may suffer severe health consequences, including uterine rupture, stroke, paralysis, and/or infertility.
The advocates
The bill's advocates claim that D&E is never necessary. Nevertheless, their bill does permit the procedure if a woman's life is in danger. Despite this exception, S3 supporters maintain that D&E is never warranted. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) submitted a statement from the American Medical Association which says that D&E is never required and that other more humane procedures may take its place.
However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists claims that the procedure is necessary and that a physician's freedom to use D&E is fundamental to protecting women's health.
So, even doctors disagree on this issue within the issue - women's health. For this reason, it is difficult for the American public to know and decide whether or not D&E is indispensable to women's health.
Since the Supreme Court's decision hinges on the issue of women's health, and because there is no conclusive information about the necessity of D&E to women's health, this issue grows from a seed of ignorance.
It is likely that the lack of information is due to doctors' differing opinions. Some feel that the procedure is a needed option for late-term abortions, and some do not. Boxer's argument then is that the decision should be left up to doctors.
S3 advocates claim that a health exception would invalidate the law altogether. Since "health" can be regarded as mental, emotional, or physical, the possible health risks would be broad and varied. Thus, the exception may amount to a license to perform D&E.
No Amendments
Both sides agree that S3 is a strategic step toward overturning Roe V. Wade. In order to protect a woman's right to choose, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) proposed an amendment that would express the sense of the senate as supportive of Roe V. Wade. Although this amendment passed the first senate vote and was added to the bill, it was immediately removed in committee (Republicans were the conferees).
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) also proposed an amendment that would ban all late-term abortion except when a woman's health or life is threatened. Those in favor of the bill opted not to adopt this amendment. This move has frustrated some pro-life advocates. Randall Perry, founder of pro-life group Operation Rescue, feels that this may have been Republicans' chance to make a difference. The amendment would have changed the bill entirely, making it likely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny and thus change abortion policy.
"The issue is in our hearts."
During the Senate debates, Boxer made a statement that everyone can agree with: "the issue is in our hearts."
S3 is an affront to Roe V. Wade, a piece of law and culture that some venerate and others scorn. Ultimately, one's opinion of banning D&E must be based on one's opinion of Roe V. Wade.
What is your opinion on this topic? Discuss it with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. Then, contact your representatives, and let them know what you think.
Article Posted on: 10/27/2003
click here to go to next section
return
to top
|
