The care of human life is the first and only legitimate object of
good government.
Thomas Jefferson.[1]
Anti-Life Philosophy.
The penalty against child-murdering mothers is an unexampled
atrocity. Who then has a greater right to dispose of the fruit than
she who carries it in her womb? ... To interfere with the usage a
woman chooses to make of it is stupidity carried beyond any
conceivable extreme.
The Marquis de Sade.[2]
The right to bear or not to bear children is such a fundamental human
right that it should not be left to the States or to the populace to
decide. The right to reproductive freedom is so essential, like the
right to free speech, that it must be protected by the Federal
government. If the States were allowed to freely tamper with abortion
rights, we would soon end up with an unworkable and unacceptable
"patchwork quilt" of laws that would punish all women,
especially poor women and women of color who could not afford to travel.
Introduction.
It is very important for all pro-lifers to recognize the fact that
committed pro-abortionists ardently believe that state legislatures have
no place at all in regulating or even discussing abortion.
Faye Wattleton, the former president of the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, demonstrated the typical pro-abortion
totalitarian mindset when she wrote in The Humanist Magazine that
"We need to remove the abortion issue forever from the legislative
arena. We need a universal recognition that our civil liberties are
off-limits to partisan debate!"[3]
Pro-abortionists, who support abortions for sex selection, birth
control, and prenatal killing in the third-trimester for convenience'
sake, believe that any tampering with the supreme abortion right
even in such relatively trivial matters as the proper burial of aborted
babies represents an unconscionable interference with their own
"right to be."
Neofeminists believe that moral or ethical culpability never
lies with the woman who selfishly aborts for convenience, the
incompetent "women's help groups," or the blood-spattered,
soulless 'doctors' who commit the abortions and rake in thousands of
dollars for a morning's easy work. The blame, of course, always lies
with someone else in this case, the "religious right."
As Rebecca Chalker and Carol Downer wrote in their recent book A
Woman's Book of Choices that "If women are injured or die
trying to abort unwanted pregnancies because safe, legal facilities are
outlawed, the blame rests not with them or with those trying to help
them. It rests squarely on the shoulders of the religious right, on
state legislatures that have passed regressive abortion restrictions,
and on the U.S. Supreme Court, which has chosen to limit access to safe
abortion facilities."[4]
This statement is as supremely stupid as claiming that burglars who
are shot and injured and killed by business owners and homeowners are
not at fault, because the fault lies with those who pass the laws and
those groups that are opposed to burglary.
This attitude is a good example of the Neoliberal desire to be free
of all constraints and responsibilities. Pro-aborts believe that there
must be no obstacle to self-fulfillment, self-actualization, and
self-indulgence. Nowhere is the Neoliberal mind more absolutist than on
the subject of abortion.
A lengthy quote by Lana Clarke Phelan nearly 25 years ago lays bare
the psychology behind the pro-abortion "no compromise"
position, and helps to illuminate the kind of thinking that leads to
absolutist and illogical acts of extremism on the part of committed
pro-abortionists. This mode of thinking still dominates the pro-abort
mind today.
... in 1968 America, we are faced with incredible laws
reflecting this occult impregnation of women, not by their mates, but
by the god-sent seed of the state-approved god, whose seed woman may
not reject under any circumstances.
It is this unvoiced superstition and lingering fear of displeasing
the old gods, or their present-day advocates, that keeps an uninformed
public subservient to archaic abortion laws which compel every female
made pregnant to bring forth her infant sacrifice to the gods. How,
then, can we possibly poke fun at religious retardation in India,
where cattle are worshipped and children starve, when a so-called
educated and enlightened nation like our own suffers under and
perpetuates an equally ridiculous theology in the form of law? The
United States is the last real stronghold for this ignorance and
cupidity [lust for wealth] held mainly in force by the moneyed
hierarchy of a crumbling and retarded Roman Catholic Church.
... it is increasingly embarrassing for medical men to
justify compulsory carrying of an embryo to term, based on the
fantastic notion that this one unwanted sperm among millions has
somehow been blessed by the Moon God.
Abortion laws are sexual discrimination laws: a lie, a farce, and
slavery in its cruelest sense. Her rights to human conscience are
abridged. She becomes a beast, and is stripped of all human rights
until the state has reaped its pitiful crop from her bleeding womb and
mutilated psyche. Her body imprisoned by force, she is certainly
deprived of her liberty, and with her physical labors chained to the
care of unwanted infants for at least 20 years of her life, there is
no opportunity for the pursuit of happiness outlined in our American
dream. An animal, she is politically dead ...
When males set out to govern the sexual morality of females, we
have rats guarding the cheese ... The abortion laws are laws against
the nature of woman in the most sacred and intimate area of her
instinct, and compulsory pregnancy and motherhood is obscene
prostitution of her soul and body which does little to enhance the
image of rational males.
The compulsory breeding of women by church and state is nothing
more than ecclesiastical and legislative pimpery, in which the bodies
of all women are utilized for state profit and pleasure. It is
imperative that faced with the mounting, inundating tide of human
fecundity these same men be openly charged with their crimes against
nature, and all respect and honor be removed from them until they
remove once and for all the obscene laws with which they intrude so
crudely and salaciously into our private lives.[5]
The remainder of this chapter describes the more significant
legislation passed by the United States Congress and the various state
houses.
FEDERAL ABORTION LEGISLATION
In the laws concerning abortion, we find an outspoken expression of
the best sentiments of society. The law is a constant monitor: The
clergy and all other educators may fail in their duty to properly
instruct the people, but we still have left instruction in the law.
Attorney Junius Hoag (1890).[6]
Introduction.
Although all pro-life and pro-abort eyes lately seem to be riveted
upon the United States Supreme Court, it is the United States Congress
that implements the day-to-day 'nuts and bolts' aspects of this
country's operation.
The three most important Congressional actions that have taken place
over the last twenty years are the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), the
Mexico City Policy, and the Public Service Health Act.
The following paragraphs describe these actions and some of the other
more significant Federal legislation regarding abortion that has been
formulated since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in
1973.
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
[The Freedom of Choice Act] provides for no exceptions no
exceptions whatsoever ... A state may not restrict the right of a
woman to terminate a pregnancy and that is for any reason.
FOCA cosponsor Don Edwards (D-Ca).[7]
The Impacts of FOCA.
Pro-abortionists tolerate absolutely no restrictions on their supreme
abortion 'right.' Even those limitations that have broad and deep public
approval (i.e., parental involvement and informed consent) are anathema
to them. In general, whatever leads to more abortions is a positive
"good" to them, and whatever leads to less abortions is
"bad."
The primary impetus for a Federal Freedom of Choice Act came after
the United States Supreme Court's Webster decision of July 1989.
Immediately after this decision, pro-abortion organizations went
ballistic. They said that women would begin dying by the thousands every
year again. And they said that Roe v. Wade was a "mere
skeleton." In other words, they took what was, in practical effect,
a minor defeat in the courts and parlayed it into a rallying cry that
spread from coast to coast.
Meanwhile, they introduced a bill in Congress that, according to the
National Abortion Rights Action League, would "codify Roe v.
Wade." This is an obvious falsehood, of course: If the
pro-aborts really wanted just to "codify" Roe,
they would have used the same language set forth in the Court's
decision. But they did not. They went much further.
The pro-abortion strategists were obviously taking advantage of the
high degree of general public ignorance about Roe and the status
of abortion in this country in general. A 1990 Wirthlin poll found that
one-third of all respondents believed that there were less than 100,000
abortions committed in this country annually. The average figure quoted
regarding the number of abortions performed for rape and incest was 21%
of the total, and to save the life of the mother, 15% of the total. Even
more significantly, a Parade Magazine national poll showed that
72% of all respondents believed that abortion should be illegal beyond
the third month, while most believed that abortion is completely illegal
beyond the third month.[8]
In light of this knowledge, the pro-abortionists framed their actions
in terms of what the public believed the abortion situation was
in this country: "A reasonable compromise between the rights of the
woman and the fetus."
The practical effects of FOCA would go far beyond those wreaked by Roe
v. Wade, of course. One of the most ardent supporters of the bill,
the American Civil Liberties Union, stated that "This [FOCA] bill
prohibits such restrictions as parental notification and consent, as
well as the requirement that all abortions be performed in a hospital,
spousal consent, waiting periods ..."[9]
The Implications of FOCA.
The FOCA threat, as intimidating as it sounds, may not be as bad as
pro-lifers generally believe.
To begin with, many members of Congress who are elected from the 44
states that have abortion restrictions in place recognize the extreme
nature of FOCA and do not want to alienate their constituencies
unnecessarily. As late as March of 1993, there were not enough solid
votes in Congress to even pass FOCA with a simple majority.
Secondly, even in the unlikely event that FOCA does pass both houses
of Congress and is signed into law by President Bill Clinton, it will
almost certainly be declared unconstitutional by the United States
Supreme Court, which has held again and again in decisions such as Webster
and Casey that states do indeed have the right to impose certain
restrictions on abortion.
The only way that FOCA will ever become the law of the land is if a
pro-abortion President packs the Supreme Court with justices that see no
validity in any kind of abortion limitation. In other words, the top
levels of all three branches of government will have to be rabidly
pro-abortion for FOCA to succeed in its intended mission. This is an
event that is not likely to happen for more than a decade, if it ever
does.
The Mexico City Policy.
Overview. Since 1973, Congress has prohibited the use of so-called
"population assistance" funds for performing or promoting
abortion in foreign countries. These funds have recently averaged about
$230 million annually, and, until 1984, the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) interpreted this guideline very
loosely (as pro-abortion agencies invariably do), directing a large
portion of these funds to international organizations, such as the
International Planned Parenthood Federation, that relentlessly push
abortion in less-developed countries. Of course, earmarking funds for
these entities in any manner was exactly the same as giving them money
to perform and promote abortions.
In 1984, on President Reagan's order, the United States delegation to
a population control conference in Mexico City announced that
"population assistance" funds would no longer be allocated to
organizations that performed or promoted abortions as a method of family
planning in other countries.
PP Counterattack.
Pro-abortion groups, led by (who else?) Planned Parenthood,
counterattacked in the legislative arena immediately. However, the
Congress upheld the Mexico City Policy by 45 votes. At this point,
overseas population groups had a choice of either abandoning their
pro-abortion activities or losing the funds. All chose to keep the
funds, except the fanatical International Planned Parenthood Federation,
which gave up $17 million in annual funds about five percent of its
budget. The Family Planning International Assistance Program (FPIA),
operated by PPFA in New York City, also rejected the Mexico City Policy
and sued the Federal government in January of 1987 to overturn it.[10]
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America also lost about half of
an $89 million United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
contract, which, of course, heavily focused on PP's (per)version of
"family planning."
Planned Parenthood spent over $2 million during the period 1987 to
1989 on lobbying, litigation, and advertising directed at overturning
the Mexico City Policy, which prohibited funding for private
organizations which "perform or actively promote abortion as a
method of family planning." In 1987 alone, this included ten
quarter-page advertisements in the New York Times and the Washington
Post, 13 full-page advertisements in magazines, and 900 subway and
bus ads in Washington, DC.[11]
The hysterical PP allegations and personal attacks included a
photograph of a starving Black woman and her piteously undernourished
child with a headline that cried;
THE LAST THING SHE NEEDS IS A SERMON
FROM JESSE HELMS.
Kemp and Smith Prevail.
Eventually, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to overturn
the Mexico City Policy, but the bill never reached the floor. The House
Appropriations Committee, led by Jack Kemp and Chris Smith, defeated the
PPFA amendment by a vote of 26 to 21 on August 6, 1987. On December 3,
the Senate Appropriations Committee also rejected the amendment by a
vote of 14 to 11.
The Public Service Health
Act.
Overview.
The Public Service Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-572) is also
known as the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act.
Originally, Section 1008 of Title X of this Act read: "None of the
funds appropriated under this Title shall be used in programs where
abortion is a method of family planning."
The HHS Inversion.
This statement was a considerable obstacle in the path of
heavily-funded pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood, so the
pro-abortionists packed a Health and Human Services (HHS) advisory
committee during the Carter administration. This committee inverted the
original meaning of the law to actually require applicants for
Title X funds to refer for abortions.
Emboldened by this successful bit of subversion, HHS drew up
guidelines that allowed abortion and contraception providers to assess
the financial need of teenaged girls based entirely on their own
incomes; i.e., as if they were living by themselves, with no support
from their parents. Naturally, almost all teenaged girls qualified under
this standard, and, by 1985, more than 40 percent of all Title X funds
were going towards family planning for teenagers not the poor, as
was originally intended. While poor ghetto families went without aid,
tens of thousands of rich promiscuous preppies got free pills and
abortion advice.
The Kemp-Hatch Amendment.
To remedy this intolerable situation, the Kemp-Hatch Amendment to
Title X was passed into law by Congress. This Amendment read "No
Federal funds may be used to provide to any pregnant woman abortion
procedures, counseling for abortion procedures, or referral for abortion
procedures, unless the life of the mother would be endangered by
carrying the fetus to term."
This Amendment simply returned Title X to its original intent. It
prohibited funding to groups that actively facilitated abortion by
referring or arranging for abortions. However, it did not restrict other
Federal funding programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, as Planned
Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups immediately alleged. The
pro-abortionists also wrongly stated that the Amendment would prohibit
medical schools from teaching the abortion procedure, and would prohibit
family planning groups from identifying abortion as "an option
available under the law."
The pro-aborts also whined that the Kemp-Hatch Amendment would
"cripple family planning in the United States," although it
would cut off funds to only 74 of the total of 5,000 family planning
clinics in the United States.
The Supreme Court Rules.
The question reached a boil when the United States Supreme Court, in
its May 23, 1991 Rust v. Sullivan decision, held that the Federal
government, while allowing abortion, may still prefer childbirth over
abortion by refusing to subsidize counseling for the latter. This action
stripped the Planned Parenthood Federation of America of more than $34
million. The United States Congress voted in a subsequent action to
nullify the Supreme Court decision, but President George Bush's veto
stood up.
Public Law 95-215 (the 1977 Amendments to the Public Health Service
Act) is similar to Public Law 93-45 (the Health Programs Extension Act
of 1973) in that it protects those individuals and institutions that
refuse to perform abortions. This Act required the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services)
to prepare a study that would examine the widespread practice of denying
applicants admission to medical, nursing, or osteopathic schools because
they opposed abortion on moral or religious grounds and would not
advocate abortion or participate in abortion procedures.
Subsequently, Public Law 96-76 (the 1979 Amendments to the Public
Health Service Act) provided that any institutions receiving federal
funds could not bar any individual because they would not support, refer
for, or participate in abortions because of their religious or moral
beliefs.
Other Federal Legislation.
Introduction.
Abortion is the most important, explosive, and far-reaching social
issue of our time. Therefore, it is inevitable that it will insinuate
itself into Congressional activities on almost a weekly basis,
particularly when a bill regarding almost any aspect of health care is
being considered.
This section describes some of the more important Congressional
legislation that impinges upon the abortion debate, as follows;
• Abortion Appropriations Amendments
• Budget Reconciliation Act (PL 97-35)
• DOD Appropriations (PL 97-114)
• District of Columbia Appropriations Bills
• Foreign Assistance Appropriation Bills
• Health Programs Extension Act (PL 93-45)
• Legal Services Corporation Act (PL 93-355)
• Pregnancy Disability Amendment (PL 95-555)
Abortion Appropriations Amendments.
Many abortion battles in Congress occur during the debating of
appropriations bills, usually those for the Department of Health and
Human Services (formerly the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare). At times, the paychecks for millions of federal workers have
been held up by these debates before compromises or agreements could be
made over abortion funding.
Appropriations bills must be passed by Congress at least once every
two years. If a new appropriations bill does not pass, the old one is no
longer in effect, so the agency or agencies for whom monies are being
appropriated simply cannot operate.
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.
Public Law 97-35 (Title IX of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981
(Health Services and Facilities)) permits the allocation of federal
funds only to health programs that do not advocate or provide abortions,
except in the case of a pregnant minor who had the permission of both
her parents or guardians.
Department of Defense Appropriations.
These Department of Defense appropriations (Public Law 97-114)
include funds for the operation of military hospitals. These bills bar
the funding of abortions at military hospitals, except in cases to save
the mother's life.
Attempts by pro-abortion forces in 1991 to overturn this policy
showed that even supposedly disciplined professional military men
sometimes unthinkingly spew pro-abortion propaganda.
Lieutenant Commander Jeffrey T. Jensen, head of the Obstetrics and
Gynecology Department at the Subic Bay Navy Hospital in The Philippines,
said in a letter to pro-abort Congressman Les AuCoin [D.-umb] that the
"... prohibition against abortion at overseas hospitals has
endangered women's lives and interfered with the readiness of our
military."[12]
Thinking persons were led to speculate as to how the absence of
abortion could possibly hobble the military's effectiveness.
The question became moot on January 22, 1993, when newly-elected
President Bill Clinton removed all restrictions on abortions at military
hospitals.
District of Columbia Appropriations Bills.
Municipal funding for the District of Columbia must be appropriated
by Congress. Public Laws 96-530 and 97-378 (Fiscal Years 1981 and 1983)
forbid the use of federal funds for abortions, except those to save the
life of the mother, or in the case of pregnancies caused by rape and
incest that are reported immediately to the appropriate authorities.
Foreign Assistance Appropriation Bills.
These appropriations bills (Public Laws 95-148 and 97-121, Fiscal
Years 1979 and 1982) barred the use of any federal funds for abortions
or for pro-abortion lobbying.
Health Programs Extension Act of 1973.
This Act (Public Law 93-45) forbids public officials from ordering
those entities receiving federal money to perform abortions or make
their facilities available for abortions if performing the procedures
violates that person's or institution's religious or moral beliefs.
Also, those persons who refuse to perform abortions may not be
discriminated against because of such refusal.
Legal Services Corporation Act.
Public Law 93-355 (1974) bars attorneys who work in federally-funded
legal aid programs for the poor from providing any legal advice
pertaining to abortion, except where the abortion might be performed for
"compelling" health reasons. This law also prohibits such
legal aid lawyers from taking to court any person or institution which
refuses to perform an abortion, in an attempt to compel such person or
institution to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) has always possessed a
reputation for aggressive Left-wing lobbying, and has been a constant
source of irritation to conservatives. This Act finally insured that
such lobbying would be done on the pro-abort's own nickel, and not the
taxpayers.'
Pregnancy Disability Amendment.
Public Law 95-555 (The Pregnancy Disability Amendment to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964) required that pregnancy be treated as a
disability, and therefore guaranteed health insurance coverage for women
workers covered by health insurance. It also permitted employers not
to pay for insurance that provided funds for abortions, except in cases
required to save the mother's life. However, the law did not prohibit
employers from paying for insurance that did provide payments for
abortions.
STATE ABORTION LEGISLATION
Introduction.
On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court, by brute force,
wrested from the States the ability to mind their own affairs in the
critical area of abortion. This exercise of "raw judicial
power" essentially removed the abortion debate from the realm of
public discourse and enshrined it as a "super right" above all
others, as subsequent Supreme Court decisions have shown.
However, the Court's July 1989 Webster decision gave pro-life
states the hope that, one day, they will be able to conduct their own
affairs without the Federal government looking over their shoulders.
The result has been a flurry of mostly unsuccessful State attempts to
limit abortion. Clearly, Webster did not go far enough; but many
more challenges to Roe are currently in the legal
"pipeline."
Figure 58-1 shows the status of State restrictions on abortion as of
July 1990. It is important to remember that this table will be changing
constantly and rapidly, especially since the Supreme Court's July 1989 Webster
decision and its ruling in Pennsylvania's Planned Parenthood v. Casey
litigation. Naturally, if the Freedom of Choice Act is signed into law
by Bill Clinton, this figure will become instantly obsolete.
FIGURE 58-1
STATE RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION AS OF JULY 1992
KEY
State Funding
(1) State pays for all abortions
(2) State pays for abortions to save the mother's life only
(3) State pays for abortions to save the mother's life and
for rape and incest
Restrictions on Minors
(4) Parental notification required
(5) Parental consent required
Restrictions on Procedure
(6) Informed consent required
(7) Abortions may be performed in a hospital only
(8) Mother must reside in state for specified period
Abortions on Viable Babies
(9) Abortions on viable babies prohibited entirely
(10) Abortions on viable babies allowed to save the
mother's life only
(11) Abortions on viable babies allowed only for the
mother's life and health
(12) 2 MDs must be present for late abortions
(13) Aid required for babies aborted alive
(14) Late-term abortions must be performed in a hospital
only
Miscellaneous
(15) Abortuary licensing of some type required
(16) Abortions will be banned after Roe v. Wade is
limited or overturned
NOTATIONS
X Existing law ignored or unenforced by court system
C Court bypass provision
E Currently enjoined by courts
U Declared unconstitutional by courts
TYPE OF RESTRICTION
ALABAMA
2X 5X 6X 15X
ALASKA
1X 5U 6X 15X
ARIZONA
2X 5C 10X 16X
ARKANSAS
2X 4X 11X 12X
CALIFORNIA
1X 5E 9X 11X
COLORADO
2X 5U
CONNECTICUT
1X 11X
DELAWARE
2X 5U 6X 13X
FLORIDA
2X 5X 11X 15X
GEORGIA
2X 4X 15X
HAWAII
1X 7X 8X
IDAHO
2X 4X 6X
ILLINOIS
2X 4E 11X 16X
INDIANA
2X 5X 6X 14X
IOWA
1X 11X
KANSAS
2X
KENTUCKY
2X 14X
LOUISIANA
2X 5X 8X 14X 16X
MAINE
2X 5U 7E 10X
MARYLAND
1X 4U 5U 8X 9X
MASSACHUSETTS 1X 5X
6U 8X 11U
MICHIGAN
2X 5X 1X
MINNESOTA
1X 3X 4X 8X 11X
MISSISSIPPI
2X 5U 6U
MISSOURI
2X 5X 6U 11X 15U
MONTANA
2X 4U 6X 9X 11X
NEBRASKA
2X 4X 6X 11X
NEVADA
2X 4U 8U
NEW HAMPSHIRE 2X 10X
NEW
JERSEY
1X
NEW
MEXICO
2X 5U
NEW
YORK
1X 10U 14X
N.
CAROLINA
2X 10U
NORTH DAKOTA 1X
5X 6U 9U 14X
OHIO
2X 4X 6U
OKLAHOMA
11X
OREGON
1X
PENNSYLVANIA
2X 6X 9U 16X
RHODE
ISLAND
2X 5X 6U 9U 10X
S.
CAROLINA
2X 5X 9U 14X
SOUTH DAKOTA
2X 4E 5U 9U 14X
TENNESSEE
2X 4U 6U 11X 14X
TEXAS
2X 11X 15X
UTAH
2X 4X
VERMONT
1X
VIRGINIA
3X 6X 9U 14X
WASHINGTON
1X 5U 8U
WEST
VIRGINIA
1X 4X
WISCONSIN
3X 6U 11X
WYOMING
4X 5X 9U
References: (1) "Who Decides: A State
By State Review of Abortion Rights in America." National Abortion
Rights Action League. (2) "Across the USA: Abortion Laws in Every
State." USA Today, April 22, 1992, page 13A. (3) Eloise
Salholz. et.al. "Abortion Angst." Newsweek
Magazine, July 13, 1992, pages 16 to 19.
Parental Consent and
Notification Laws.
Introduction.
The most notable State battles to date have involved parental consent
and notification laws.
Pro-lifers argue that a young girl cannot get her ears pierced, or
get any other type of medical procedure performed, without her parent's
permission. Yet she can abort a life-changing event in most cases and
parents have no right to even attempt to influence their daughter's
decision!
Even when parental notification or consent laws are passed by a
state, they usually include a 'judicial bypass' provision, where a girl
may petition a judge to allow her an abortion on the basis of her proven
maturity.
These judges are literally rubberstampers, because in those
incredibly rare cases when an abortion is denied, the event makes front
page headlines and generates complaints and lawsuits from angered
pro-abortion groups as in the case of Judge Randall Hekman.[13]
Fighting Against Families.
Generally, when fighting abortion restrictions, pro-aborts point to
bogus or heavily-doctored public opinion polls 'showing' that the
majority of the American public is 'pro-choice.' These polls are either
scams or are deliberately misinterpreted by the pro-aborts, as described
in Chapter 76, "Public Opinion Polls on Abortion."
Naturally, pro-aborts do not mention public opinion polls at all when
fighting parental consent or notification laws, because they know for a
fact that the vast majority of Americans support such laws.
So, the pro-abortionists do what comes so naturally to them; they
rely on the courts to do their fighting for them. For example, Ohio's
state house and senate overwhelmingly passed a parental consent law and
was approved by 76 percent of the state's residents. But the American
Civil Liberties Union brought suit on behalf of two (naturally)
anonymous teenaged girls, and Federal judge Ann Aldrich threw out the
new law.[14]
Effectiveness of the Laws.
The purpose of parental notification and consent laws is twofold: (1)
to return the decision to the families, thereby restoring usurped
parental authority, and (2) to try to cut down on the staggering rates
of teenage pregnancy in the United States.
Such laws are extremely effective at accomplishing both objectives.
As one example, when a 1981 Minnesota law requiring parental
notification for abortions was enacted, the ascending birth rate for
teenagers attending schools with school-based clinics reversed itself,
and the entire state saw a dramatic decrease in abortions, births, and
pregnancies among teenagers.
Minnesota's parental notification law was in effect from August 1981
to March 1986. In absolute numbers, the rate of abortions among girls
aged 15 to 17 was 19.0 per 1,000 before the law was enacted, and dropped
28 percent to 13.6 per 1,000 the year after the law was enacted.
According to the House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and
Families, during the time period 1980 to 1983, abortions by Minnesota
teens dropped 40 percent, births declined 23.4 percent, and pregnancies
dropped 32 percent.[15]
During the same period, the Minnesota teen population decreased by
only 13.5 percent.[16]
Finally, in March of 1986, a judge struck down Minnesota's parental
involvement law at the urging of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, which
was apparently angry that its business was being crippled by loss of
abortion and contraceptive business. PP's efforts were rewarded, because
the rate of teen pregnancy in the state immediately began to rise again,
from 14.42 per 1,000 in 1985 to 15.45 per 1,000 in 1986, the year the
law was struck down.[17]
Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations had argued in
court that the Minnesota law was ineffective at reducing the teen
abortion rate because girls just left the state to get their abortions.
However, teenaged girls in Minnesota did not have easy access to states
without parental involvement laws, in contrast to the situation in
Massachusetts. Therefore, the claim that they just left the state for
abortions holds no water.
Massachusetts is another state that showed a dramatic improvement in
the teen pregnancy situation after passing a parental involvement law.
The table below shows statistics on the state's teen pregnancies,
births, and abortions both before and after the 1981 law was enforced.
IMPACTS OF MASSACHUSETTS PARENTAL CONSENT LAW ON TEENAGE
PREGNANCIES, ABORTIONS, AND BIRTHS
[A medium text size on your computer's 'view'
setting is recommended, otherwise, the tables may be discombobulated.]
1980
1982
(Before the Law) (After the
Law) Change
Abortions to
girls under
18
5,113
3,943
-1,170
Births to
girls under
18
2,471
2,478
+7
Pregnancies to
girls under
18
7,584
6,421
-1,163
References. (1) Virginia G. Cartoof and
Lorraine V. Klerman. "Parental Consent for Abortion: Impact of the
Massachusetts Law." American Journal of Public Health,
Volume 76, Number 4, April 1986, pages 397 to 400. (2) Jacqueline R.
Kasun. "Effects of the Parental Consent Law in Massachusetts."
ALL About Issues, June-July 1988, page 27.
Despite the fact that teen pregnancies and abortions in the state
dropped precipitously in just two years, pro-abortionists decided, as
usual, to stick their heads in the sand and ignore statistics that did
not suit them. For example, two researchers published the above
statistics in the American Journal of Public Health and then
bleated in the same article that "The major impact of the
Massachusetts law [requiring parental consent for minor's abortion] has
been to send a monthly average of between 90 and 95 of the state's
pregnant minors across state lines in search of an abortion ...
Massachusetts minors continue to conceive, abort, and give birth in the
same proportions as before the law was implemented."[18]
Curiously, the authors of the above study did not provide any proof
of their claims that the Massachusetts law was ineffective at curbing
teen abortions. Nor did they note that the teen abortion rate in
neighboring states without parental involvement laws did not rise
in response to the mini-migration of Massachusetts teens into them for
the purpose of obtaining abortions.
References: Legislation on Abortion.
[1] Thomas Jefferson, quoted in Thomas Longua. "The Forgotten
Issue in the "Abortion Debate."" The Wanderer,
August 17, 1989, page 4.
[2] The Marquis de Sade. Juliette (New York: Grove Paperbacks,
Inc.), 1968 pages 782 and 783.
[3] Faye Wattleton. "Reproductive Rights Are Fundamental
Rights." The Humanist, January/February 1991, page 21.
[4] Rebecca Chalker and Carol Downer. A Woman's Book of Choices:
Abortion, Menstrual Extraction, RU-486. Four Walls Eight Windows
Press, Post Office 548, Village Station, New York, New York 10014. 1992,
271 pages.
[5] Lana Clarke Phelan. "Abortion Laws: The Cruel Fraud."
Speech presented at the First California Conference on Abortion at Santa
Barbara, California in March of 1968 by the Society for Humane Abortion,
Inc., San Francisco, California.
[6] Junius Hoag, Attorney at Law. "Abortion and the Law." Medico-Legal
Journal of New York, Volume 8 (1890), pages 125 and 126.
[7] Freedom of Choice Act cosponsor Don Edwards (D-Ca), quoted on a
January 22, 1990 National Abortion Rights Action League briefing on
C-SPAN.
[8] "The Week." National Review, December 3, 1990,
page 12. Also see Mark Clements. "Results From a National Survey:
Should Abortion Remain Legal?" Parade Magazine, may 17,
1992, pages 4 and 5.
[9] American Civil Liberties Union. Reproductive Rights Update,
December 20, 1991. Also see the ACLU pamphlet entitled "Civil
Liberties in the 102nd Congress," 1991.
[10] Planned Parenthood's 1986 Annual Report, page 15.
[11] Susan Manuel. "Abortion Battle is Launched." USA
Today, April 15, 1987, page 3A. Also see Planned Parenthood's 1987 Annual
Report, page 11.
[12] Roberta Ulrich. "Bill Allows Military Hospitals Abroad to
Perform Abortions." The Oregonian, May 23, 1991, page A10.
[13] Frontline Updates. "National Organization for Women Files
Complaint on Judge Who Denied Abortion Request." National Right
to Life News, December 9, 1982, page 4.
[14] "Judge Says State Interest in Children Overrides
Parents." National Federation for Decency Journal, August
1986, page 18.
[15] Barrett Mosbacker. "Teen Pregnancy and School-Based Health
Clinics." National Federation for Decency Journal,
November/December 1986, pages 5 to 9.
[16] Robert W. Lee. "How Planned Parenthood Uses $30 Million in
Tax Money to Promote Abortion." National Federation for Decency Journal,
July 1987, page 5.
[17] Joyce Price. "Law Seen Decreasing Teen Abortions,
Births." The Washington Times, March 15, 1991, page A3. The
study quoted in the article is James L. Rogers, Ph.D., Robert F. Boruch,
Ph.D., Geoarge B. Stoms, B.A., and Dorothy DeMoya, DNSc. "Impact of
the Minnesota Parental Notification Law on Abortion and Birth." American
Journal of Public Health, March 1991, pages 294 to 298.
[18] Virginia G. Cartoof and Lorraine V. Klerman. "Parental
Consent for Abortion: Impact of the Massachusetts Law." American
Journal of Public Health, Volume 76, Number 4, April 1986, pages 397
to 400.
Further Reading: Legislation on Abortion.
Dave Andrusko (editor). A Passion for Justice.
National Right to Life Committee, 419 7th Street NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20004. 1988, 160 pages. This is one of an excellent
continuing series of National Right to Life books that summarize the
preceding year in the courts and legislatures, and look ahead to future
years.
Issues in Law and Medicine.
Edited by James Bopp, Jr. of the National Legal Center for the
Medically Dependent and Disabled. A publication which updates the legal
and medical issues pertaining to the medical treatment for handicapped
and disabled persons of all ages. Subscribe by writing to: National
Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, Post Office Box 1586,
Terre Haute, Indiana 47808-1586.
National Right to Life News.
This biweekly newspaper is published by the National Right to Life
Committee. It is probably the best overall source of information on
ongoing state and federal involvement in all three branches in both
abortion and euthanasia. Subscription for one year can be ordered from
419-7th Street, NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC 20004. Most local Right to
Life affiliate groups file back issues of this magazine. Addresses and
phone numbers of these groups are provided in Chapter 20 of Volume I,
"Pro-Life Organizations." Call these organizations for
up-to-date information on protective abortion legislation in your state.
© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published
by American Life League.
|
