Nationally coordinated mass protests are needed
1989 1989-07Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 1 →
Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.
Scan page 1
Court declares war on women's abortion rights Choose TION Woman's sight On Day of the Court decision: Over 4000 protest in ABORTION:
Woman's to •AA4 Jose gh Ryan/Socialist Action ht Right hoose Choose LABOR to Wa Raht Moose San Francisco. Other cities saw similar rallies.
CAROLE SELIGMAN
JONI JACOBS Without completely outlawing abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court did all it could to deny women the right to choose safe, legal, accessible abortions. In a sense, the Court issued a death sentence to unknown numbers of women by upholding a Missouri law that places severe restrictions on legalized abortion, affecting low-income women most of all.
The Court's July 3 ruling inWebster v. Reproductive Health Services dealt one more major blow to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. That historic decision overturned anti-abortion laws in every state by giving women a constitutional right to privacy in family-planning decisions.
The first setback to accessible abortion came in 1977 when Congress enacted the Hyde Amendment. This law cut off federal Medicaid funding for low-income women needing abortions.
The Webster decision upholds the state of Missouri's right to restrict access to abortions by:
1) prohibiting public funding ("not one penny"), facilities, and employees from being involved in pertorming abortions except to save a woman's life;
2) mandating tests for "fetal viability" after 20 weeks of pregnancy, even if the tests endanger women;
3) prohibiting public funds for anyone who counsels a pregnant woman about the option of abortion-unless her life is in danger.
The Court also let stand the Missouri law's preamble, which declares that human life begins at conception. The decision thus provided justification for a possible attempt to outlaw all future abortions.
Specter of further restrictions This decision opens the door for all states to severely restrict access to abortion. Although the Court did not overturn Roe v. Wade, it may be only a matter of time until it does. In fact, the Court announced that it will hear three more anti-abortion cases in its next session.
All three cases raise the specter of further restrictions on abortion. Ragsdale v. Turnock (Illinois) challenges restrictive licensing of outpatient abortion clinics, which makes abortion so expensive it is inaccessible to most working-class and poor women.
Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health and Hodgson v. Minnesota challenge state laws requiring parental notice or a court order for minors to obtain abortions. Twenty. six states currently have such parental-consent laws.
The right to abortion has been so tho(continued on page 4, in “Industrial toxins are still deadly after 'recycling'”)
----- pull-quotes -----
ABORTIO Womm's