"Supporters of women's rights must explain that while passage of this referendum would clearly
1992 1992-09Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 3 →
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 3
reflect the pro-choice views of the majority, it must be immediately followed by a campaign to reverse this restriction on EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCE The other, sb. 162, while maintaining the right to choose, included a clause requiring the physician to notify the parent of a teenage woman under 18 prior to her abortion, with some exceptions.
Behind the scenes, sponsors of the clean bill quietly dropped this bill and formed a "pro-choice coalition" with the legislators who favored restrictions. These legislators then put pressure on pro-choice organizations to support their restrictive bill.
The previous year, an abortion rights bill had been filibustered and defeated by rightwing senators. Now "pro-choice" politicians confronted the movement with an ultimatum: Support this compromise or there will be no bill.
Many activists felt frustrated with the restrictions being imposed, but saw no choice other than to support the one bill remaining (sb. 162). Passage of this bill was seen as a victory, albeit limited, for the pro-choice movement.
As soon as the bill passed, anti-abortion forces successfully collected enough signatures to take it to referendum. This prevented the law from going into effect.
Pro-choice groups have come together in the Maryland for Choice coalition to ensure passage of the referendum-Question 6.
Among the member groups are the ACLU, NARAL, Planned Parenthoods of Maryland and Metropolitan Washington, the Maryland State Teachers Association, Baltimore NOW, Maryland Students for Choice, and the Washington Area Clinic SOCIALIST ACTION FORUM "Message to the Defense Task Force.
The wording of the ballot referendum states that the new law "prohibits state interference with [a] woman's abortion decision before [the] fetus is viable." Under this law, however, the right to choose without govemment interference is denied for young woman. This is a step backward. Roe y. Wade contains no such restriction.
Politicians claim that such laws promote family communication. But parental notification and consent laws not only do not improve parent-child communication, they actually endanger the lives and health of teenage women by forcing them to seek young women."
"back alley" abortion providers.
Supporters of women's rights must explain that while passage of this referendum would clearly reflect the pro-choice views of the majority, it must be immediately followed by a campaign to reverse this restriction on young women.
Unfortunately, this is not the perspective of the leadership of the Maryland for Choice campaign.
While the main piece of campaign literature does not include either support or opposition to this provision, the massive phonebanking effort now under way across the state includes the parental notification