Does being pro-choice mean you're anti-child?

Scan page 2

Action Staff: Alex Chis, Paul Colvin, Gerry Foley, Joni Jacobs, Malik Miah, MayMay Gong, Hayden Perry, Barbara Putnam, Kwame M.A. Somburu, Carole Seligman, Action Publishing Association, 3425 Army St., San POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Socialist Action, 3425 Army St., RATES: For one year (12 issues)U.S. 2nd Class: $8, Ist Class: $16; Canada and Mexico 2nd Class: $12, Ist Class: $18; All other countries 2nd Class: $15, Ist Class:

2 SOCIALIST ACTION APRIL 1992 I saw an interesting conversation recently on "CBS This Morning." It was between Andrew Pudzer, the Missouri official who wrote the restrictive abortion law upheld by the Supreme Court in its 1989 Webster decision, and B.J. Isaacson-Jones, director of the Reproductive Health Services clinic that challenged the law.

Pudzer considers himself firmly "pro-life," while Ms. IsaacsonJones is just as firmly "pro-choice." Yet these two icons of radically opposed ideologies are finding common ground.

Pudzer has realized that if the state is going to deny women the right to abortion, it must make it economically possible for women to bear children. "If a woman has to have an abortion because she can't afford to have a child," he says, "then that's not a choice." In order to make birth an option, Pudzer wants both sides of the abortion debate to advocate publicly-funded prenatal care.

Isaacson-Jones agrees. She is also disturbed that lack of prenata care, among other necessary social programs, forces some women to choose an abortion. She thinks it's time the pro-life and pro-choice groups put aside their rhetoric and help give women real choices. "It doesn't matter who wins the abortion debate," she said, "if women and children still suffer."

While I also agree that publicly-funded prenatal care is needed, I think the dialog between Pudzer and Isaacson-Jones's misses the essence of the abortion debate. When the issue is framed only in terms of children, the opposing sides may seem reconcilable. But behind the rhetoric lie two views of women which are irreconcilable.

Pro-choice in the socialist sense means the right to have children, as well as the right not to have children. That right includes using the vast wealth of this society to benefit working people, rather than funneling super-profits to the ruling elite. Choice involves free health care for everyone, free quality child care, education and housing, and full employment at living wages. These are basic human needs which must be met before we can begin to talk about choices for our lives.

While Pudzer defines "choice" much more narrowly, I doubt he'll find much support even for his limited view among pro-lifers. Throughout the 19 years since Roe v. Wade, the prolife/anti-choice movement has been conspicuously absent on all other "life" issues except abortion. It has never tried to stop the death penalty, or opposed war, or advocated prenatal care or education for the babies it is so intent on saving.

Pudzer may be the exception that proves the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement: its concern for children begins—and ends—in the womb.

The pro-life/anti-choice movement is not about children; it's about oppressing women. It's about treating women as if we are intellectually and morally incapable of making decisions for ourselves. It's about proscribing our sexuality so that women can't have sex without bearing children.

Ultimately, Pudzer is no different. Pretending to offer "real" choices, Pudzer wants women to have only one choicechildbirth. Pudzer calls for a tradeoff whereby women will have economic support for bearing children only by giving up other reproductive options, especially abortion.

The problem is, of course, that women are not breeders. We have needs and rights independent of our potential for childbirth, and we demand that these rights be realized.

Sometimes arguing against Pudzer-style misogyny sounds as if we're against women ever bearing children, because his argument employs the classic "divideand-conquer" technique.

The anti-choice movement pits women against children by characterizing women who want to terminate unwanted pregnancies as selfish, heartless, child-hating harpies.

Raising children is so important, however, that it shouldn't be the sole burden of women, as it has been historically and as the pro-life movement wants it to be.

Editors: MICHAEL SCHREIBER, JOSEPH RYAN Business Manager: BARRY SHEPPARD Socialist Action (ISSN 0747-4237) is published monthly Second-class postage is paid at San Francisco, Calif.

San Francisco, CA 94110.

$30. (Money orders or checks should be in U.S. dollars.)

Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views expressed in editorials.

The essence of the abortion debate is the self-determination of women, just as the essence of the class struggle is the self-determination of working people. If a woman's right to reproductive self-determination is undermined, the rights of everyone-including children-suffer.

So while Pudzer is dialoguing tion rights debate, there is no common ground. The abortion rights fight is another battle in the war to overturn the privilege and power of the few over the many.

Remember: half of our children grow up to be women. If Pudzer has his way, their rights will end when they reach puberty.

Closing date: 'March 29, 1992 for $8 per year by Socialist Francisco, CA 94110.

Scan page 3

legal abortion of some form. Thirty three percent support unrestricted abortion.

Yet Congress effectively outlawed abortion for low-income women by cutting off federal funding. Staff at federally-funded clinics can't even tell women that abortion is a safe, legal alternative to an unwanted pregnancy. And the Supreme Court is perched like vultures, waiting to overturn Roe v. Wade and send untold numbers of women to their death in back alleys filled with bloody coat hangers.

Who do these politicians represent? It sure as hell isn't us, or we wouldn't be This isn't the first time a movement like ours has been in our position. The Civil Rights movement faced in its day—as we face today—a hostile Supreme If leaders like Dr. King, Medgar Evers and Malcolm X had focused their struggle on lobbying, precinct-walking and the acceptable political process, there wouldn t have been a Civil Rights Act, a Voting Rights Act, or any other form Instead, the Civil Rights movement fought power with power. Each successive attack on Black rights was met with bigger and mightier demonstrations in the streets. They let loose a mass movement which couldn't be stopped no matThis is true of every social protest movement. From the abolitionists in the 1800s to labor in the '30s to the anti-Vietnam war movement of the '60s, rights are won because people mobilize massively and independently. Independent of the government, independent of the Democratic and Republican parties that run this government of the rich and for the rich at the expense of working people.

But when social justice movements leave the streets and go back to "politics as usual," the opposition goes back to work undoing what's been accomplished.

Rights are not won through electing and lobbying so-called "good" politicians. Women didn't win the right to vote by electing anyone—we couldn't. That right was won through strikes, picket-lines, sit-ins, demonstrations and actions of irresistible force meeting seemingly immovable obstacles like the This is the lesson we need to re-lear, and today's march is a great classroom What we're doing here today-and what we'll be doing a week from today in Washington-is the best kind of lobbying possible, When we gather together, tens and hundreds of thousands and millions strong, we see the power that our movement possesses. We see that it's possible to take our right to choose from Our bodies are the battleground in the tight tor simple, democratic nights. we must be visible and mobilized on every front—in the streets, in front of the Women's lives depend on our fighting for safe, legal, funded abortion-and SOCIALIST ACTION APRIL 1992 "I will die before I let you control my body." "Will you be there after the birth?" "Anti-abortion laws equal rape."

Pro-choice activists carried these slogansand others—as they marched toward San Francisco's Civic Center on March 29. Elizabeth Toledo, president of the San Francisco chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a key organizer of the march, estimated the size of the demonstration at 75,000. She called it the "largest women's march in West Coast history."

Prior to the demonstration, organizers received a significant amount of attention from the media. The San Francisco Examiner, for example, printed an editorial and prominent story in support of the march.

The composition of the march was overwhelmingly young and impressively diverse, both ethnically and geographically. Contingents of marchers came from as far away as Portland, Ore.; San Diego, Calif.; and towns in Iowa and Utah. A Canadian flag flew over one contingent, and there were reports that women from Mexicali, Mexico, also attended.

The march was a tremendous affirmation of the idea that mass actions are an effective vehicle to mobilize and inspire activists to fight for their rights. Chants of "We won't go back" broke out spontaneously throughout the day.

The movement was united The size of the march demonstrated the power of a united pro-choice movement. The action was called by the San Francisco Pro-Choice Coalition. Scores of pro-choice organizations participated in the coalition, including NOW, Planned Parenthood, CaliJoseph Ryan/Socialist Action fornia Abortion Rights Action League (CARAL), Defend Abortion Rights Emergency Coalition (DARE), and the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR). All of these groups actively built the march.

By contrast, when the coalition initiated a march and rally last Oct. 5, many of the largest pro-choice organizations—such as NOW, CARAL, and Planned Parenthood— refused to build the demonstration and withheld their support until the last minute. With their involvement this time, however, March 29th was many times larger than the Oct. 5 march.

Rally speakers represented the diversity of support for pro-choice. Speakers included Dolores Huerta, vice president of the United Farmworkers (UFWA); Norma McCorvey, "Roe" of Roe v. Wade; Lakota Hardin, a Native American activist; and Erica Chriss, an El Cerrito High School student, who explained the deadly effects of parental consent/notification laws. Socialist Action, a strong builder of the march, had a representative who spoke at the height of the crowd.

The program was not without controversy. Ethel Long Scott, of the Women's Economic Agenda, spoke about the potential misuse of Norplan to sterilize minority and low-income women, a theme echoed by Luz Alvarez Martinez of the National Latina Health Organization. This new form of birth control is being pushed heavily by Planned Parenthood as a safe, effective alterative to the pill.

Celebrities also spoke, including actress Rita Moreno, who spoke about her own illegal abortion. "Nobody can control our lives and shape our destinies-except us," she said.

Ed Asner, actor and long-time El Salvador solidarity activist, spoke about the important role men must play in the fight to control our reproduction rights. "Pro-choice is considered a woman's issue," he said. "And this perception is the biggest threat to reproductive rights and the right of choice."

Asner told of the experience he and his partner had several years ago in obtaining an abortion. His partner was forced to travel to Cuba. "At that time," Asner said, "Cuba was known for cigars, sugar, and abortions. "

Ironically, revolutionary Cuba has always provided free abortions to women, while the "democratic" capitalist United States is restricting women's right to choose.

Significantiy, no politicians or political candidates were allowed to speak. However, speakers from many pro-choice organizations focused on an electoral strategy for the movement. Several Democratic Party candidates made their presence known with contingents in the march.

Barbara Boxer, a Democratic Congresswoman running for the Senate, had a large group of supporters at the march. Her campaign has highlighted her commitment to women's issues, and has tried to tap into the anger women feel at the Clarence Thomas confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Boxer's "commitment" is pretty shallow, The following is the speech by Joni Jacobs at the March 29 March for Women's Lives in San Francisco, Calif. Jacobs was the Socialist Action candidate for mayor of San Francisco in 1991 and is the former chair of the Reproductive Rights Committee of the San Francisco chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW).

There's a myth in this country that America is a democracy. But what kind of democracy ignores the will of 80 percent of the people?

Bighty percent of Americans support here today.

Court, a hostile White House, and a hostile Congress.

of legal equality for African Americans.

ter how hard the government tried government.

the politicians and courts that deny it to us clinics, and in our communities.

nothing less! though, as shown by a recent fundraising letter. Sent to thousands of pro-choice supporters less than a week before the demonstration, Boxer's letter failed to mention either the March 29 or the April 5 marches.

Patricia Ireland's speech

Patricia Ireland, president of National NOW, was a keynote speaker at the rally. She reminded the crowd that 44 million American women have already lost their abortion rights. These women include lowincome women, denied public funding for abortion; teen-aged women, victims of parental consent/notification laws; women in the military; women on Native American reservations; and rural women who live in areas without abortion clinics.

Ireland called for pro-choice supporters to gather in mass numbers in Washington, D.C., on April 5. She noted that the mobilization will be the day after the 24th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King.

"We are going to tell the world that bullets can't stop us, Bush can't stop us, bullies at the family planning clinics can't stop us," she said. "We will fight back and win."

But Ireland's proposal for how to fight back is the same, dead-end strategy that has failed the pro-choice movement for decades. Ireland said that since the Supreme Court may eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, the challenge is to elect women to Congress to pass pro-choice laws.

It is a contradiction that groups such as NOW organize huge numbers of people to demonstrate for their rights, and then tell them the next step is to vote for "pro(continued on page 19)

Scan page 4

wants to "get tough on crime." Henry Schwarzschild, a (ACLU), casts light on American thinking: "The culture is now dominated by a kind of macho reaction. Toughness is the universal solvent to every problem that America faces. ... The death penalty is a symbolic demonstration of toughness."

However, "toughness" does not steel the average citi-

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

and in his corner By

with Isaacson-Jones, let's not be duped. At the heart of the abor-

"The march was a tremendous affirmation of the idea that mass actions are an effective vehicle to mobilize and inspire activists to fight for their rights. 'hants of 'We won't go back' broke out spontaneously throughout the day."