The Los Angeles Daily Journal April 11, 2003 Even 30 Years After ‘Roe,’ Abortion Services Are Rare By Magaly de Oliveira Marques, Ann Hayman and Lourdes Rivera On Jan. 22, women in America had reason to celebrate. That date marked the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), establishing abortion as a constitutionally protected right. By acknowledging that it is a woman's right to decide if and when to have children, Roe not only empowered American women, it also meant that women no longer had to subject themselves to dangerous, back-alley abortions at the hands of unskilled practitioners. Not surprisingly, the legalization of abortion led to significantly lower maternal mortality rates in the United States. Unfortunately, the 30th anniversary of Roe also provided an opportunity for Americans to lament. While still legal, abortion services are just not available to many women when they need them. As usual, when it comes to health care in America, poor women, rural women, women of color and adolescents are having the hardest time getting the care that they need and to which they have a right. Hundreds of legal challenges over the past three decades have limited women's access to safe and affordable abortion services. Some states have introduced a mandatory waiting period between a woman's first visit to an abortion clinic and the time when she is allowed to have an abortion. Such policies pose serious problems, especially for rural women, who have to travel great distances to get to an abortion provider. At a time when a staggering 87 percent of all U.S. counties have no abortion provider, traveling far is not unusual. Another barrier to women seeking reproductive health services is the fact that an ever-increasing number of hospital systems are being taken over by religious organizations that allow religious doctrine to rule what services are available to patients. Not surprisingly, those hospitals do not allow abortions. They also do not provide sterilization, a range of contraceptive services or infertility treatment. Considering that 11 of the nation's 20 largest hospital systems are religiously sponsored, this is a huge problem. Young Americans are, in many ways, the hardest hit by current abortion policies. Parental consent requirements for pregnant youth - however well intentioned they may seem - force many teenage Americans with abusive parents to go through a complex process that includes appearing in court in order to obtain permission to have an abortion without notifying their parents. The vast majority of young women consult their parents about abortions, but it is those women who do not have the family support or emotional resources that are forced to go to court. Navigating the court system is a challenge for most Americans. Needless to say, it is much harder for young people living with abusive or unsupportive parents. To make matters worse, by promoting abstinence-only education in the schools, policy makers deny American youth access to a full range of information about sexuality and reproduction. There are plenty of problems with this policy, but the main one is that it doesn't work. As a result, we live in a country where a stunning half of all pregnancies are unintended and where teen pregnancy rates are much higher than in the rest of the Western world. Opponents of abortion please note: The effect is not fewer abortions, but more. In addition, the current administration is using abortion politics as a "litmus test" for appointments to government bodies. Federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, which oversee women's health care, contraceptives and other drugs, are becoming pawns in the ideological game. The most recent threat comes from a bill to ban so-called “partial birth” abortions. Coined by the pro-life movement, the term “partial birth” abortion has no agreed medical or legal meaning. It is a political term, designed by opponents of abortion to evoke outrage. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a ban that was essentially identical. Sternberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2002). On March 13, the U.S. Senate passed this deceptive abortion ban. The House Judiciary Committee passed the bill on March 26, and the full House is expected to vote on the bill in May. If the ban on “partial birth” abortions becomes law, it will limit further the constitutionally protected rights of women in this country. It is high time for Americans on all sides of the abortion debate to start demanding public policies that are based in reality. As long as we allow Congress to expend energy and resources on anti-abortion bills based on the ideological preoccupations of those in power, we will never be able to address the public health crisis facing this country. Magaly de Oliveira Marques is the executive director
of the Pacific Institute for Women's Health. Ann
Hayman is the chair for the Southern California
Affiliate of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Lourdes
Rivera is the managing attorney for the National Health
Law Program. |