More Attacks on Abortion Rights

Two amendments have turned a bill meant to extend health care to more children under Medicaid into the most serious threat yet to the right to pregnant women to choose abortion, according to Karen Mulhauser, Executive Director of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). "Voters and legislators must be told that H.R. 4962 is a major step toward returning to the nightmares of back alley abortions, a major step toward the anti-choice goal

SCALPEL.. SPONGE.. SUTURE!!!

ABORTION CLINIC NO WELFARE PATIENTS

bill were sponsored by Harold Volkmer (D-MO) and Robert Bauman (R-MD). The Volkmer amendment permanently prohibits funding abortions for Medicaid women except when the woman's life is in danger, and even more importantly, strikes down the statutory basis for past and future court decisions that affirm a poor woman's right to choose abortion. The intent of the Bauman amendment is to spell out clearly that courts cannot order states to fund Medicaid abortions, according to the floor discussion before the House vote.

"Because of the amendments, the bill would open to challenge those court orders in 12 states that have allowed poor women to choose abortion by giving them access to state funds when anti-choice laws have

POCKETKNIFE.. STRING.. COAT HANGER./ thwarted access to federal funds. Although legisla-

tion has eliminated almost all federal funding of abortions for Medicaid recipients (99 percent, according to HEW figures), nearly 75 percent of those same recipients still have access to abortion services through state funds. This bill is a victory for those who would shut the door to that choice,'

Mulhauser said.

In addition to all the above reasons why repeal of abortion laws is really in the best interests of women, there is the practical consideration that it is much easier for anti-abortion forces to add more restrictions onto existing laws than to get independent antiabortion legislation passed on their own. Fighting these added restrictions, as with the notorious "Akron Ordinance", requires money and time (in Akron, 11⁄2 years!). Many of the restrictions in this atrocious ordinance were struck down as unconstitutional, yet some remain and its worst elements are being pushed by anti-abortionists as the model for other cities.

Fortunately pro-choice forces are overcoming repression in Akron, but the question of why we should have to undergo such struggles, city by city or even state by state, remains. Why aren't the prochoice groups fighting for total repeal? The fact that the anti-abortionists can get such restrictions tacked onto existing laws shows clearly the need to organize for total repeal'now.

LNS

of eliminating all right to choose a safe, legal abortion," she said.

The bill would also bring to the Social Security Act a permanent prohibition against funding of abortions for poor women except when necessary to save their lives. Up to this point, anti-choice forces have not been able to achieve a permanent prohibition against abortion funding for poor women, but only temporary restrictions placed on appropriations bills, which are reviewed annually.

The amended Child Health Assurance Program authorization bill (H.R. 4962), which passed by voice vote in the House on Tuesday, December 11, 1979, would take away the right of courts to order state funding of abortions for poor women. This bill is far more serious than amendments to appropriations bills, Mulhauser said, because it actually alters the law upon which court decisions that affirm the right to choose have been built-the Social Security Act. "It is a severe blow to the right to choose, destroying the statutory basis for pro-choice court decisions, leaving the Constitution as the final target for antichoice advocates," she said. "It also blurs the traditional separation of powers between court and Congress. It allows Congress to tell the courts what construction they may not put on law by saying that nothing in the Social Security Act 'can be construed to require states to fund abortion'. Never before in history has Congress stripped the courts of their right to interpret law. We must not allow such a dangerous precedent. In opposing this restrictive legislation, we're fighting not only for the rights of poor women but also to preserve the role of the courts in our democratic process".

A Senate counterpart to H.R. 4962 is expected to be on that body's floor sometime this month. "The Senate bill must remain clean of abortion language. We will not compromise. We will stay firm, even if that means the passage of otherwise good legislation is delayed,” said Mulhauser. "We can no longer allow anti-choice proponents to play on our concern for the welfare of children. Their goal is a return to kitchen table abortions, which is hardly a pro-family goal, and is not to the benefit of anyone".

The rights-threatening amendments to the House Page 6/What She Wants/January, 1980

Repeal All Abortion Laws

By Kathryn Scarbrough and Lavonne Lela

Over ten years ago when feminists, including those in NOW, began organizing around the issue of abortion, their demand was to repeal all abortion laws. To some of us this may sound surprising and perhaps even shocking. The original idea of repeal has almost been buried, and often confused amidst all the discussion of reforming or liberalizing the laws.

The argument for the repeal of all abortion laws is based on the conviction that abortion is a woman's right, a medical procedure for which all women have a just claim. Our sexual/reproductive organs are our own and must not be subject to governmental regulations. Sex and pregnancy must be voluntary; forced reproduction is an injustice to us as human beings.

The stipulations regarding where, when, and by whom an abortion may be performed are insulting and limit access to this service. We don't need laws to steer us away from quacks. When safe, inexpensive

medical procedures are available we will use them and choose the practitioner as we would for any other medical procedure. There are many laws gov erning the practice of medicine in order to insure quality care, but the abortion law is the only one that dictates the permissible actions of a patient. (For instance, there are no laws stating whom to see and where or when to go for a tonsillectomy!) In fact, routine abortions are relatively simple procedures which can and have been performed by paramedics. and midwives. Most abortions can be performed in clinics and doctors' offices; therefore, various ordinances requiring hospitalization serve only to drive up the cost. The stipulation that abortions cannot be performed (under normal circumstances) after a particular length of time-even though the risks involved are still quite low-puts physicians in a bad position. Many will not perform abortions on women whose pregnancy even approaches the arbitrary 21st or 24th week limit because they fear prosecution.

Candidates' Positions on Abortion

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) recently sent a questionnaire to 15 announced Presidential candidates to determine their

Key:

Candidate Jimmy Carter

positions on abortion. The following chart shows the tally so far:

1 yes

life, rape, incest

John B. Connally (R) Ronald Reagan (R) John B. Anderson (R) Howard Baker (R)

yes

rape, incest, physical health

yes

life of mother

yes

all

yes

all

1. Do you oppose amendments to the U.S. Constitution that would make abortion illegal and make the woman and doctor subject to criminal prosecution for murder?

2. Do you support an effort to amend the U.S. Constitution through the Constitutional Convention

process?

3. Do you support public funding for abortion services for indigent women when the procedure is deemed medically necessary?

4. Which of the following circumstances do you think necessitate public funding for abortion services? Rape, incest, mental health, physical health, fetal damage, disease, age, other?