Volume 12, Issue 8. May 1, 2001 

Reproductive Emergency
by Wendy Kaminer



Life is one long emergency for most advocacy groups--whose members are apt to be united by the belief that they're besieged. To an outsider who lacks their political passions, however, they seem less besieged than overwrought. So casual supporters of abortion rights may be unimpressed when the National Organization for Women (NOW) declares an official state of emergency in the battle over reproductive choice. The "Emergency Action for Women's Lives," targeting the U.S. Senate, is being launched with an April 22 rally in Washington, D.C. So far, this campaign doesn't seem to have generated much excitement or publicity. But the more you know about threats to choice, the more you share NOW's sense of urgency. 

Question:  1. How is Kaminer characterizing "advocacy groups"?  You may need to look up some words to fully understand her assertion. Do it!

A majority of Americans support abortion rights, but rather queasily, and the anti-abortion and pro-choice movements have been stalemated for several years. Pro-choicers narrowly defeated efforts to criminalize particular abortion procedures (in the guise of bans on mythical "partial birth" abortions), and they recently won a Supreme Court decision striking down the nonconsensual drug testing of pregnant women. But over the years, restrictions on minors' rights have been upheld, along with restrictions on the use of public funds to finance abortions and on the rights of publicly funded doctors even to talk about abortion with their patients. 

Question: 2. What is the purpose of this paragraph?

Attacks on the basic constitutional right to obtain an abortion outlined by Roe v. Wade have failed, just barely, but access to abortion has declined: Violence against abortion providers is a strong disincentive to doctors, and many are no longer being trained to perform abortions anyway. In Massachusetts a major Boston hospital has shut down a late-term abortion program that served women who needed to terminate pregnancy after 14 weeks because of serious health problems. "This is reminiscent of the problems of 30 years ago," the chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center told The Boston Globe. Anti-abortion activists have managed to make the legality of abortion irrelevant for many women by making the availability of abortion scarce. 

Question: 3. Kaminer uses several quick examples here.  Why? Do you have any sense what side of the issue Kaminer takes?  What in her language gives you that idea?

This bad situation is about to get worse. Encouraged by the ascension of George W. Bush, anti-abortion activists are renewing their efforts to erode reproductive rights incrementally. They're already tasting victory: The new president, grateful and obliged to opponents of abortion rights, moved swiftly to deny U.S. aid to international family-planning agencies that merely provide abortion counseling.
President Bush also favors stringently limiting access to mifepristone (RU-486), which the FDA recently approved; and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson has signaled his willingness to order a new review of the drug. Along with other anti-abortion bills recently reintroduced by Republicans, Congress is considering placing limits on RU-486. 

Question: 4.  What does Kaminer assume about her readers? What is her tone (and how do you know) regarding the current US government?

The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act exemplifies the strategy of destroying reproductive choice without ever attacking it directly. Drafted with the assistance of the National Right to Life Committee and introduced in Congress by two Republicans, Representative Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, this bill would make it a federal crime to injure or kill a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman, at any stage of fetal development (and even if the attacker were unaware of the pregnancy). It's not a novel concept. Fetal-protection laws are in place in a majority of states, although some consist of sentence-enhancement schemes in cases involving fetal injury or death--an approach that expresses the public's particular abhorrence for attacks on pregnant women without necessarily undermining their reproductive rights. 

But protecting pregnant women is not what anti-abortion advocates in Congress have in mind. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is intended to confer personhood and independent legal rights upon a fetus. In other words, it would incorporate the theoretical underpinning of the anti-abortion movement into federal law. 

Question: 5.  Again, what language choices does Kaminer make that subtly promote her still unstated position ?

The Teen Endangerment Act, introduced by Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, also favors the presumed interests of the fetus over the interests of the pregnant woman (or, in this case, pregnant girl). It would make felons out of family members such as grandmothers, aunts, or older sisters who transport a minor across state lines for an abortion if the girl cannot obtain parental or judicial
permission for an abortion in her home state. 

Question: 6.  What does Kaminer think of the Teen Endangerment Act?  How does she appeal to her readers here?

Encouraging communication between parents and kids is a worthy goal, but laws like this do not further it. Rates of parental involvement in teen abortions are about the same in states with parental-consent laws as they are in states without such laws. (Pregnant teens usually do seek the help of at least one parent, and the rate of parental involvement in abortions is especially high: 90 percent for girls 14 and younger.) What will be the effect of a federal law that punishes family members other
than parents for helping pregnant teenagers? This is one law that threatens to live up to its title: If it's enacted, the Teen Endangerment Act surely will endanger teens by encouraging them to obtain illegal abortions, continue high-risk pregnancies, or seek help from hostile, violence-prone parents. (One-third of teenage girls who do not
talk to their parents about abortions have previously been the victims of family violence.) 

Question: 6.  How does she appeal to her opponents here?  How does Kaminer use facts to her own advantage?

Battles over anti-abortion measures like these are important, but they are mere skirmishes compared to the upcoming fight over the next Supreme Court nominee. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been crucial in maintaining the 5–4 majority in favor of Roe, is expected to retire soon. Bush will, no doubt, nominate a judge opposed to abortion rights, and if he or she is confirmed, Roe v. Wade will be overruled as soon as the next case challenging it wends its way to the Court. 

The crusade to make abortions illegal and unsafe (they are unlikely ever to be rare) does pose political risks for Republicans. If outright abortion prohibitions and a reversal of Roe v. Wade were popular, Bush would not have cloaked his support for them during the campaign. Female voters deprived of all abortion rights could become a more potent political force than are male voters who fear being deprived
of their guns. If reproductive choice falls victim to the Bush administration, the administration could in turn fall victim to reproductive choice. But once revoked, rights are not quickly or easily restored; and the Supreme Court outlives the administrations that shape it. A Bush Court would survive, while women and girls would die from illegal abortions. There are surely better ways to win elections. 

Questions: 7.  Kaminer makes several sweeping assumptions here. Do they work?  Would they have been as effective at the beginning of the essay?  What is Kaminer's position, anyhow?

Wendy Kaminer 





http://www.prospect.org 
Return to Top