Reproductive freedom

Last month the U.S. Senate voted 64-34 in support of the partial birth abortion ban of 2003. The bill will now go to President Bush, who has announced that he will sign it into law.

Once signed, three national pro-choice organizations are poised to file temporary restraining orders in search of a preliminary injunction in federal appellate courts across the country. A decision will be handed down in one of those cases. Assuming an appellate decision that finds the law to be unconstitutional, opponents of reproductive freedom will petition the U.S. Supreme Court which will decide whether to hear the case.

In 2000, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in Carhart v. Stenberg that a Nebraska law virtually identical to the law President Bush is about to sign was unconstitutional. Among other shortcomings, the Supreme Court majority found that the Nebraska law was clearly in conflict with Roe v. Wade when it failed to provide an exception that would allow pregnant women to access post-viability abortion procedures to protect their health. The Supreme Court also found the law to be unconstitutionally vague in a way that would certainly outlaw second-trimester (pre-viability) abortions and, some have ventured, first-trimester abortions.

It has been said that the authors of the ban reviewed the constitutional precedents guiding reproductive health law of the last 30 years and decisively thumbed their noses by submitting the partial birth abortion ban of 2003. There is no reason to believe that the high court will reverse itself.

In the meantime, however, both chambers of Congress and the White House are united in their determination to bring down the protections provided by Roe v. Wade. Though we will be told this bill is just about one procedure, we should not be fooled. Other anti-abortion bills, endorsed by the same politicians who moved the partial birth abortion ban of 2003 through to passage, are in the pipeline. While Maine’s pro-choice majority can take the view that the partial birth abortion ban of 2003 is not likely to see the light of day, the Senate’s vote, and the president’s signature, send an unmistakable message.

The message goes like this: Never mind that fewer than 2 percent of abortions in the United States are provided after viability. Never mind that women seeking post-viability abortions do so only after they have learned that the infant they deliver will not be able to survive outside of the womb. And never mind that the president and his anti-choice colleagues in Congress know that the bill they are converting to law will be found unconstitutional.

The partial birth abortion ban of 2003 has just one purpose: We on the hard right have the power. We have both houses of Congress; we have the White House. We lack just one branch of government, the judiciary. And once we secure the Supreme Court, we will overturn Roe v. Wade.

There are some who believe that if President Bush is re-elected in 2004 and a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, an anti-choice nominee will be confirmed and Roe v. Wade overturned. This would mean the elimination of a national legal standard for abortion and the reintroduction of state regulation of abortion care. Fifty states, 50 different abortion statutes.

What can be done in Maine, for Maine women? If reproductive freedom is important to Mainers, determining what your candidate’s position is on existing Maine law is critical. We must ask candidates running for the state Legislature – the Maine House and the Maine Senate – whether they support reproductive freedom for Maine women as Maine women are allowed to practice it under existing Maine law. In the face of such powerful opposition in Washington, an unambiguous yes in support of reproductive freedom is demanded, and deserved.

George A. Hill is executive director of the Family Planning Association of Maine.