March for Abortion Rights on April 25

By Rebecca Doran

On April 25, an historic number of activists will convene on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., for a march and rally in support of women’s rights and reproductive freedom. While the organizers of this mass demonstration are calling for all people concerned with justice for women to march, the federal government is launching an attack on those very issues.

In November 2003, in another attempt to restrict women from access to legal abortion, the so-called "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act" was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. This new federal ban could block abortions as early as the 12th to 15th week of pregnancy, even when doctors say that they are safe and that they may be the best choice for women in the second trimester.

The ban makes no exception for women's health or cases where severe fetal abnormalities are present. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act also carries a maximum two-year prison term for doctors convicted of performing the procedure.

In this legislation Congress wrote, "A partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman" and is "outside the standard of medical care." In an attempt to prove this to be true, the government demanded the medical records from abortion providers. A federal judge in Manhattan ruled that Presbyterian Hospital in New York City must comply, and a judge in Michigan issued a similar ruling.

Immediately after the signing of this legislation, three lawsuits were filed to challenge the ban: National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft in New York, Carhart v. Ashcroft in Nebraska, and Planned Parentood Federation of America v. Ashcroft in San Francisco.

Because judges in New York, Lincoln, Neb., and San Francisco have agreed to hear evidence in these three separate trials without juries before deciding whether the ban is in violation of the Constitution, the law has not been enforced.

The Senate approved legislation on March 25th that would make it a separate offense to harm a fetus while committing a federal crime against a pregnant woman.

"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (UVVA) gained momentum after the 2002 murder of Laci Peterson, a Modesto, Calif., woman who was almost eight months pregnant at the time of her disappearance. The gruesome discovery of Peterson’s body along with that of her unborn son captured headlines throughout the country as controversy grew over the issue of whether a fetus should have rights.

Both Republicans as well as some Democrats are calling the passage of this bill, adopted on a 61 to 38 vote, a strong step forward in the effort to protect women from acts of violence. However, the pro-choice movement is calling the legislation something quite different.

Under the UVVA, embryos and fetuses will now gain unprecedented legal rights that challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

The bill, which was heavily lobbied by anti-abortion groups, actually has very little to do with protecting women from acts of violence. The UVVA is simply an open invitation for capitalist politicians to continue using women’s bodies as vessels for their own political gain and to undermine a woman’s right to reproductive freedom.

The bill, which was also passed in the House by a 254 to 163 vote, contains a groundbreaking section that defines an unborn child as any child in utero. Furthering this definition of a fetus, the authors of the bill declared that any child in the womb, at any stage of development, is a member of the species homo sapiens.

An amendment was introduced into the Senate by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, which would have imposed the same tough penalties outlined in the bill while classifying an attack on a pregnant woman as a single-victim crime. It lost on a 50-49 vote. Another amendment to the UVVA that would have required companies to provide an unpaid leave of absence for victims of domestic violence or sexual assault was also rejected.

In light of these blatant attacks on women, one member of the anti-choice camp, Sen. Orrin Hatch, stated in regard to the UVVA, "They say it undermines abortion rights. It does. But that’s irrelevant." Democrat Tom Daschle, who is up for re-election in the relatively conservative state of South Dakota, also supported The Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

This right-wing attitude in the Democratic Party, as well as the Republican Party, helps to shed light upon the overwhelming hurdles which millions of working-class people in America must overcome in order to receive just the basic necessities of life. But the leaders of the women’s movement are rallying behind the Democrats, claiming that a vote for Kerry is a vote for choice.

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, spoke to a crowd of pro-choice supporters in San Francisco just minutes after the Senate passed the UVVA. In her speech she stated, "This is a very, very serious setback.

Pro-choice advocates have been too complacent that the right to an abortion can never be lost. Too many believe it cannot and will not happen. But the Supreme Court is not immune to social currents. This highlights how important it is to elect a pro-choice president."

Michelman charged that the Bush administration had stepped up an "extraordinary and evil campaign" to restrict legal abortion, contraception, and stem cell research. This effort, she warned, "will be used as a rationale" to overturn Roe v. Wade. "I’ll tell you," she continued," what’s going to stop that—and that is the election of John Kerry as president of the United States."

Michelman is correct in her assessment of the bleak situation the pro-choice movement is facing. Today, the right for a woman to control her own body is hanging by a thread, as two and possibly three Supreme Court Justices are expected to retire.

The right to reproductive freedom granted under the Roe v. Wade decision has been chipped away to the point where most counties are left without abortion clinics. Women of color and women of lower economic status face an even tougher time gaining access to health care. Restrictive waiting periods, informed consent requirements, bans on public funding, and insurance prohibition are all tactics used by the right wing in their fight for a ban on abortion.

However, rallying behind Kerry and the Democratic Party is a dangerous road to take. Cuts to health care and welfare and bans on sex education are not measures laid out by the Republican Party alone.

As long as women in the military are still denied access to legal abortions, and as women are still being attacked by welfare cuts, no feminist should even consider supporting either of the two ruling-class parties.

A major step toward solving the issue of women’s liberation will come about with the construction of a mass workers’ party that places people before profit. In the meantime, the wealthy anti-choice lobbyists hold great power over the very politicians who claim to support women. The women’s movement must understand that a vote for any capitalist politician is a vote for oppression.

The article above first appeared in the April 2004 issue of Socialist Action newspaper.