Canadian women fight proposed abortion law

Scan page 6

6 SOCIALIST ACTION DECEMBER 1989 Under a proposed abortion law recently introduced by the Tory government, an abortion could only be performed if a physician stated that carrying the pregnancy to term would endanger the physical or mental health of the mother. The Justice Minister specifically stated that social and economic factors would be excluded.

While anti-choice forces are trying to add even more restrictions, the Liberals have stated that this is an unacceptable compromise. The New Democratic Party, the Canadian labor party, opposes this proposed law.

Canadian pro-choice activists are on an educational campaign to explain why this bill is not an acceptable compromise. Cherie MacDonald, spokesperson for the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics told Socialist Action: "Saying that some abortions are illegal would open the possibility of third-party suits and government action to prevent abortions. It would intimidate doctors, further limiting access. The experience of two years without an abortion law shows that none is needed."

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney prised at the extent of opposition to his proposed "reform." Although he had originally promised a new law by Christmas, he has now revised his time table to next spring. Pro-choice activists are optimistic that they can continue winning support and block passage of any new abortion law.

Pro-choice groups have started up on camFIGHT O FIGHT Women Today Rights Pamphlets on Women's Liberation The Fight for Women's Rights Today Sylvia Weinstein ($1.25)

Marxism and Feminism: The Worldwide Struggle for Women's Equality ($1.50)

Send order to 3435 Army St., Rm. 308, San Francisco 94110. Include 65 cents for postage and handling. Mi checks payable to Walnut Publishing Co.

Scan page 7

This is the way my older brother used to divide penny candy between himself, my sister, and me.

Once in a while, we kids would come into a bit of luck. We would each get a nickel from an aunt or uncle. My brother and I would be designated to go to the nearest grocery store and purchase 15 cents worth of penny candy. You could get quite a bit of candy for that much money in the Depression years. Then Glen, my brother, would be the one to divide it up since he was older and could count.

We would all sit on the floor, and Glen would push the candy to us. One for me, one for Bea (my sister), and two for himself. Although Bea and I couldn't count, we could use the primitive system of watching his mound of candy grow twice as big as ours. We would start to protest, and then he would say, "Okay, okay, TIl do it better." Then he would find some other way to increase his share. Sometimes we caught on to that trick too.

I was reminded of my big brother's accounting system when I read about the recent proceedings in Congress-the capital gains tax cut and that pitiful increase of the minimum wage.

"Capital gains" is the profits made from selling stocks at a higher price than when they were purchased. Lowering the tax on this portion of profits further reduces the effective tax rate paid by the rich, which means that an increasing share of the tax burden will be borne by the poor.

A capital gains tax cut was first passed in 1978, giving large stock holders a massive break in their yearly tax bill. It was eliminated as part of the tax "reform" law enacted in 1986 (which exchanged the reduced capital gains tax for other, bigger tax reductions for the rich).

Now both capitalist parties, with President Bush leading the way, are maneuvering to reinstate the capital gains tax break. Although a bill to lower the tax failed to pass the Senate this session, most observers predict it will be resurrected early in the next session of Congress.

Some crumbs to the poor President Bush was all set to veto the minimum wage bill. But he was advised by his Congressional henchmen that when it came time to lower the capital gains tax, it would look better to throw a few crumbs to the poor (the better to shovel more gold into the pock### SURPLUS 130% ets of the rich).

It is estimated that some 4 million Americans work at the minimum wage. Congressional researchers say two-thirds of them are women and between 25% and 33% are heads of household.

The minimum-wage package, finally passed in both the House and the Senate, sets a twotiered floor to wages. For most workers, it raises the minimum wage from $3.35 to $4.25 per hour. But workers 19 years old and younger get only $3.61 per hour for the first six-months "training period" and may be kept at this lower rate for another 90 days if they shift to another employer.

Even supposing you received the generous $4.25 per hour, you could work 40 hours per week for the princely sum of $170 per week. Of course, this is before taxes and other deductions. If you stay well, do not get sick, or are not fired, and work for a full 52 weeks a year you will wind up with a whole $8840.

A fall in living standards Now let's look at the real situation for both the rich and the poor in this "free" democracy. The facts provided in "The State of Working America," put out by the Economic Policy Institute in 1988, show how much living ALL RIGHT... NOW EVERYONE IS IN HIS RIGHTRUL PLACE...

Peg Averill/LNS standards are being pushed down:

"Average hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, dropped by 7% between 1979 and 1987. ... In 1987 more than 5 million workers who wanted full-time jobs were forced to accept part-time work, and among all employees, roughly 17% have no health insurance and 40% are not covered by a pension plan.

"Between 1979 and 1987," the Institute points out, "all of the progress reducing poverty since the mid-1960s has been reversed. In 1987, the average family headed by someone between the ages of 25 and 34 had an income 9% lower than their counterpart in 1973."

The only thing that has kept some families from falling into total poverty is the fact that more wives are working. In 1987, only 35% of American families conformed to the Ozzie and Harriet picture of the father bringing in the income and the mother taking care of the home and children.

The figures show that practically all families-including middle-income families-sutfered a drop in living standards. The only improvement in living standards has been among the rich. In fact, the rich have gotten much richer!

The distribution of wealth in 1987 is even more unequal than income. A household's level of wealth indicates its economic security—its ability to weather events such as medical emergencies and unemployment.

"Those with family incomes of $5000 or less had a median net worth valued at approximately 10% of their incomes," the Economic Policy Institute reports. "In 1983, the latest year for which this data is available, 24% of families had a median net worth of under $3000." (Most of the "wealth" owned by workers is in the form of equity in their homes or automobiles.")

The report continues: "Between 1962 and 1983, the wealthiest Americans increased the value of their share of the nation's wealth by 90%, for an average dollar gain of more than $3.2 million per household. During the same period, the top 0.5% increased its share of total wealth by 12% while the majority of Americans (the bottom 90%) actually lost 11% of their share."

"In fact," the Economic Policy Institute points out, "the super-rich 0.5% increased their wealth at a pace that was nearly double that of the vast majority of Americans."

The wealthiest 10% of Americans own 86% of all financial assets (i.e., cash, bonds, stocks, and bank deposits), and 57% of the nation's total net worth.

Congress is getting ready to increase the wealth of the super-rich even more by reinstituting the capital gains tax cut.

Since 1981, tax laws have changed twice. Both changes resulted in lower taxes for the rich and higher taxes for working people. The richest 1% of the country's income distribution now pay a federal tax rate six percentage points lower than in 1977. The richest 10% pay a 1.7% lower tax rate. Meanwhile, the poorest 10% pay a 1.6% higher rate and taxes for the middle 80% have remained the same.

Hunger and homelessness

Despite the "rich and famous" lifestyles thrust upon us on the television tube, there is a specter of hunger and homelessness haunting this nation. More than one in five children under the age of 18 live in poverty. Nearly half of all Black children under the age of six live in poor families. On any given night there is a minimum of 100,000 homeless children-sleeping in doorways, alleys, and parked cars.

In 1987, over one-third of the families headed by women were poor, an increase in poverty by 37.5% since 1973. There were 34.8 million Americans without health insurance who were effectively without access to healthcare services for financial reasons. Nearly one-third (11.1 million) were children.

When I was a young kid, and my brother tried to fool me and my sister with "capitalist mathematics," she and I would protest until we got an even break.

The working class is going broke hoping for an even break from the ruling rich of this country. They must begin to fight for their interests.

----- pull-quotes -----

ACLU wins payments for defense of F. socialists