NATIONAL&

STATE NEWS Ohio Congresspersons on Abortion

On April 28-30, 1979, over 750 pro-choice activists attended the annual meeting of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) in Washington, D.C. The theme of the meeting was We're ProChoice and We Vote! While the general mood of the meeting was one of determination and optimism, we heard over and over again of the need for pro-choice organizing, and activity in order to retain the rights we now have and win back the rights we have lost. Activities of the meeting included workshops on such subjects as Campus Organizing, Minors' Rights, Lobbying and Working with Minority People. One recurring theme from the workshops was that sterilization abuse, minors' rights, battered women, incest, rape and similar issues are closely linked to the abortion rights struggle. People attending saw the Right-to-Life movement and the Catholic Church as part of the right wing offensive against all women's rights and called for a new militance in the pro-choice movement. They stressed that it is time for women to bring abortion out of the closet and speak of their own experiences.

Entertainment for the weekend included original

Tribune Socialist/LNS

music by pro-choice artists Kristen Lems and Tim Vear and the auction of items donated by such prochoice supporters as Bella Abzug, Ed Asner, Lily Tomlin and Norman Lear. The most fervent bidding was for Bella's autographed hat, which sold for $200. On Monday morning approximately 300 persons took our message to Capitol Hill. Following a breakfast with several pro-choice Congressional leaders, some of us met with Ohio Senators John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum and Congresspersons Charles Vanik, Mary Rose Oakar and Louis Stokes. The following are brief synopses of these meetings.

Glenn and Metzenbaum

Both Ohio Senators are pro-choice. They told us. that Right-to-Life does some impressive lobbying and called upon us to become more organized politically. Saying that the Right-to-Life "Hit List” has their colleagues worried, they urged the prochoice movement to continue to show visible support to pro-choice senators and congresspersons.

Vanik

Congressperson Vanik's main concern appears to be the budget. He said that Congress is having enough trouble finding the money for necessary, uncontroversial human services. When questioned about a poor woman's right to choose whether or not to give birth, he replied that no one has a right to another taxpayer's money. (Apparently, it is not controversial to give birth if you are poor, but very controversial to have a choice in the matter!) Vanik will not support federal funding for abortion, and in fact

Page 4/What She Wants/June, 1979 2 sgc4 am:Wodim! # eser omst

believes that a demand for such funding jeopardizes the entire welfare system.

When asked about his mail on the abortion issue, Vanik said he pays no attention to mail from either side. He feels he was elected to use his judgment and does not allow his personal feelings to affect his vote. He added that he has never polled his constituency on any issue. Finally, he said that if we do not like his voting record on abortion, we could indicate so at election time. His aide, incidentally, told us that Vanik is "personally against abortion". If, as he says, he is influenced neither by his constituency nor his personal feelings, we were left wondering whether, perhaps, he flips a coin.

Oakar

Mary Rose Oakar, although personally strongly anti-choice, does not take a firm political stance. She feels that the abortion issue divides women. She states that she has introduced legislation to allow poor women to choose to give birth, but prefers to ignore the other side of the choice coin-choosing not to give birth.

Stokes

Louis Stokes gave the Ohio delegation a warm and cordial welcome. His mood quickly became serious as he told us that Right-to-Life is well funded, well organized and very vocal. Stokes said that this is a new Congress with a new right-wing mood. "There is a very, very mean mood in this Congress," he said, and he expects the right wing mentality to prevail on

the issue of federal funding for abortion. Stokes urged us to fight harder, become more active. politically, write more letters, and continue to apply pressure to anti-choice legislators. Stokes is one of only three congresspersons from Ohio (of a total of 23) who has a consistent pro-choice voting record.

Obviously, we have a long way to go. Although most of us still have the right to abortion, that right has been taken away from our sisters on welfare, many of whom are on welfare because they are already parents-single parents. The loss of abortion rights for poor women is only the beginning of Rightto-Life's plan. The various constitutional amendments introduced in the 96th Congress would not permit abortion under any circumstances. The usual wording is, "The paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization. without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency". Other amendments would permit abortion only to save the life of the mother.

These amendments would have far-reaching consequences, not the least of which would be the banning of certain types of contraception; criminal prosecution of the woman and her doctor for murder and of her husband as an accomplice; and careful scrutiny of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), including, perhaps, a coroner's report. We who believe in women's right to choose are a majority, and we must become a more visible and vocal majority.

-Laura Kamlen

Yvonne Wanrow: Enough is Enough!

New York (LNS)-After a seven-year ordeal in the Washington State courts, Yvonne Swan Wanrow, a Native American fighting for the right to defend herself and her children, pled guilty to second degree assault April 26 and was sentenced to five years' probation. Wanrow had been charged with second degree murder and first degree assault for fatally shooting William Wesler, a known child molester, and wounding his companion David Kelly in 1972.

In 1973, Wanrow was convicted of the charges but won an appeal. Since that time, she has waged a lengthy legal battle to have her convictions overturned.

Wanrow's case generated tremendous sympathy and support nationwide, in Europe and in Japan. When her attorneys moved for a dismissal of the case in the interests of justice, church leaders in Spokane filed a friend of the court brief in her support.

Wanrow, a spiritual and community leader in her Native American community, says she decided to enter a guilty plea to second degree assault after seven years of uncertainty rather than undergo the ordeal of a second trial. According to her attorneys, a new trial could not have guaranteed a quick settlement since either side could have appealed the jury's decision and the "nightmare (could have continued]

for years".

In her April 26 statement to the court, Wanrow said, "I wish this tragedy had never happened. I'm concerned about the people I might have offended through all this. I don't wish to bring suffering to anyone. My children have been and will be my life my family comes first. There are so many prob

——

CEIES GE

lems in the Red Nation. I want to learn so as to help others to deal with these problems. Given the chance. I would fulfill my duty as a human being on this earth to construct a better future for us all, not destroy what exists. These past seven years have been like a prison sentence. The many activities undertaken by the many people from throughout the nation and abroad have helped me this far. I intend now to return home to take care of my children and to make plans for the future."

And upon leaving the courtroom, Wanrow told reporters, "Enough is enough."

Silkwood Victory: Blow to Nukes

The recent verdict in the Karen Silkwood case not only vindicated Silkwood, a woman union activist, but also dealt a dramatic blow to the nuclear power industry which may have significant ramifications. Far more important than the large monetary award to Silkwood's family is the fact that Kerr-McGee Corp. was held to a standard of strict liability for its handling of the plutonium that had contaminated Karen shortly before her death. Under the theory of strict liability, a corporation can be held liable for in-

jury or death resulting from dangerous substances under its control, even if it has taken the most stringent precautions and meticulously followed government regulations in handling those substances. The potential benefit to workers and the public of such strict accountability is clear.

If the Silkwood decision is upheld on appeal and strict liability is imposed on corporations handling dangerous materials, it will be a fitting memorial to a courageous woman and a victory for us all.