Stakes are high for women in court hearing on Pennsylvania abortion law

Scan page 3

You willNoT A monthly newspaper with a working class perspective on world events • Introductory offer: $3 for 6 months If you want to receive your subscription in a sealed envelope you must have it mailed first-class ($18)

City State Zip SOCIALIST ACTION MAY 1992 3 On April 22, 1992, one day after ordering the death of Robert Alton Harris in California, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in a case which could mean a death sentence for untold numbers of women.

Lawyers on both sides of the abortion debate argued for and against Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a challenge to the Pennsylvania law which severely restricts women's right to abortion.

Previously, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had asked the Court to rule directly on whether Roe is still the law of the land. In that 1973 decision, the Court said abortion was a "fundamental" right which states could not infringe upon without a "compelling interest." Any restrictions on abortion were subject to "strict scrutiny" by the Court.

In this case, the Court said it would limit its review to the actual elements contained in the Pennsylvania law. The Court would decide whether those restrictions place an "undue burden" on women exercising their right to abortion, without ruling on whether that right remains fundamental.

The Pennsylvania law requires:

• Doctors to tell women seeking abortions about fetal development, including showing them pictures and counseling them on alternatives to abortion.

• Women to wait 24 hours after receiving such information before having an abortion.

• Doctors to keep detailed records, subject to public disclosure, of all abortions performed.

• Married women in most cases to notify their husbands of their plans for abortions.

In 1986, the Court struck down, by a 5-4 vote, almost identical regulations imposed by a previous Pennsylvania law. Since then, three members of that five-justice majority have retired and were replaced with justices considered hostile to abortion rights.

Acknowledging the heightened interest in this case, the Court treated this debate ...Buffalo (continued from page not the property of church and state."

Seeing how badly outnumbered they were, OR sent out mere handfuls of antichoice pickets—who were forced to stand across the street from the clinics and shout passages from the Bible to anyone who might be listening. • By mid-day, the clinics had finished all the abortions scheduled for the day. According to Kit Bonson, a spokesperson for Buffalo United for Choice, "Every single patient got through."

At a press conference that afternoon, Operation Rescue was forced to backtrack from its earlier boasts. When asked if they had been scared away by the large number of pro-choice clinic defenders, OR claimed they had never said they would go to the clinics before the "prayer" rally that evening.

When reporters pointed out how badly outnumbered they were, OR said, "It's not a numbers game. It's a success if even one person stands up for life." When asked if they still planned to shut down the clinics, OR replied, "Our goal is to save at least one life-not shut down the clinics. There's no virtue in being arrested."

Reporters commented that OR seemed to have revised its goals because of the large pro-choice turn-out.

At the April 20 evening "prayer" rally, Operation Rescue announced a threepronged offensive-Operation Rescue (direct assault on the clinics), Operation First Amendment (legal picketing in support of those engaged in "rescues'), and Operation John the Baptist (harassment of abortion providers at their homes).

A letter from Buffalo Mayor James GrifSTEAL almost as if it was a rock concert. People waited outside the court all night long in the rain in order to receive a pass to stand in line for "first come, first served" seating.

Those admitted to the courtroom heard Kathryn Kolbert of the ACLU arguing against the law. She asked the justices to fin was read, which said that OR's presence in Buffalo would be worthwhile if even only one clinic was shut down.

Throughout the week, pro-choice activists gathered at every clinic in the predawn hours, successfully outmobilizing Operation Rescue. Responding to this large pro-choice tum-out, police set up barricades separating pro-choice supporters from OR thugs. And, whenever OR goons attempted to rush the clinic doors, police arrested them. 'Choice' activists overwhelm OR Cherie MacDonald, Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics spokesperson, explained that the large pro-choice presence forced the cops to act despite the mayor's earlier promise that the police would show kindness and understanding toward OR demonstrators. All clinics remained open Name Address Joseph Ryan/Socialist Action reaffirm Roe and declare that the constitutional right to abortion is broad enough to invalidate every restriction in the Pennsylvania law. She politely skirted Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's request that she specifically address the law's restrictions.

Instead, Kolbert spoke about the case's every day with no appointments cancelled.

Operation Rescue claimed that a massive influx of people on April 25 would turn the tide. Instead, on a cold, rainy morning, an estimated 1500 pro-choice activists showed up and positioned themselves to defend the clinics. They outnumbered OR by three to one. NOW President Patricia Ireland declared, "We're forming a human shield to make sure every patient gets into the clinics and to make sure 'Operation Bully' can't get through."

Although OR thugs did push through pro-choice supporters and temporarily block one door at the GYN Women services clinic, patients continued to enter through the other two doors. Those who staged the violent assault were arrested.

Approximately 300 anti-abortionists were held in local armories for refusing to give their names or to post bail. Attempts ment to force a woman to continue her pregnancy against her will."

"Pennsylvania's onerous restrictions must fall," Kolbert argued. "Women might again be forced to the back alleys for their health care... with grave consequences."

By not arguing against the Pennsylvania restrictions themselves, the ACLU's strategy was based more on politics than the law. It gambled that a bad ruling by the Court would galvanize the pro-choice movement at the polls this November.

However, the generally expected outcome is a ruling that makes it unconstitutional for states to criminalize abortion, but permissible to impose waiting periods and counseling requirements, as well as hospitalization requirements and other restrictions now being considered in some States.

"In a way, that is the worst possible outcome," said Walter Dellinger, a Duke University law professor. "The people really at risk are vulnerable women, the young and the poor. Their rights won't be protected politically unless suburban Republican women find themselves at risk, too. Only if it's clear that no one has rights will there be a political groundswell to restore those rights."

The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other pro-choice groups are pronouncing Roe v. Wade all but dead. They are calling for pro-choice supporters to elect congressional candidates to pass the Freedom of Choice Act as an alternative to winning abortion rights through the courts. In fact, the main organizers of the historic April 5 march in Washington, D.C., were clear in their message that the next step is to vote pro-choice in November.

But this gamble by the leadership of the pro-choice movement may backfire. A muddy ruling by the Court will make it difficult to galvanize "single issue" voting by pro-choice supporters. The only candldates presented to these voters are from the Democrat and Republican parties, both of which have voted for restrictions on abortion in Congress.

Moreover, it is doubtful that the Freedom of Choice Act would pass Congress without restrictions similar to those contained in the Pennsylvania law. In any event, anti-choice forces would surely challenge the Act, which would once again place the fate of millions of women at the doorstep of the Supreme Court.

to win public support by portraying themselves as "Christian martyrs" have met the same lack of success as their efforts to shut down the clinics.

Many Buffalo residents have complained that Mayor Griffin should not have invited Operation Rescue to their city, pointing out the $14,000 per day in extra police costs could have been put to much better use.

An Operation Rescue spokesman, the Rev. Keith Tucci, promised that Buffalo OR members will continue demonstrating after the national leaders leave. He also said they might return to Kansas.

On the other hand, Buffalo pro-choice women have vowed to continue turning out in large numbers for as long as necessary to keep the clinics open. As long as that continues to happen, Operation Rescue doesn't stand a chance.

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

Subscribe to $8 for one year