Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012, June 07, 1982, Page 10, Image 9

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    TABLES OUTSIDE
Greek specialties at reasonable prices.
Seafood lunch special every weekday for
under $4.
poppis
GREEK PEASANT FOOD
WINE & SPIRIT
675 E. 13th Ave. • Closed Tuesdays • 343-0846
11:30 am -11:00 pm weekdays • 9 am -11:00 pm
weekends
1 a//<y 0UM>i
At the top of the spiral staircase
in Valley River Center
Planning your wedding is a joy our
experienced bridal consultants would
like to share with you.
• Bridal Gowns and Accessories
• Dance Dresses
• Brides’ Maids’ Dresses
• Formals
• Mothers’ Dresses
• Tuxedo Rental
• Flower Girl
343-6278
Hours from 10-6 Monday - Saturday
12-5 Sunday
HONDA
Brake and suspension work
Fuel injection work I une-ups
CALL FOR APPOINTMENT
Monday - Friday: 8:30 - 5:30
FOREIGN AUTO CLINIC
782 E. BROADWAY
Hatfield’s abortion legislation
stands best chance of success
By William Kogut
Of ttf EmmrakS
Of all the anti-abortion legislation that the
Senate could soon consider, a bill proposed by
Oregon’s Sen Mark Hatfield probably stands the
best chance of approval
It has that chance not because it was de
signed as a compromise, but because it deletes
controversial areas included in other legislation,
says Mary Ann Serratt, a Hatfield staff aide
Pro-choice advocates disagree They see the
bill as being different in appearance, but not in
substance
Hatffield’s bill permanently outlaws federal
funding of abortion, expedites Supreme Court
review of the abortion issue and would give any
citizen the right to bring a court action because of
alleged violation of the bill's funding provisions
“It's more tightly drafted and better crafted
than other legislation." says Ron Fitzsimmons,
legislative coordinator for the National Abortion
Rights League. “But it goes about (similar) things
in a more roundabout, clever way. It took us a
while to figure out what's going on.”
Pro-choice partisans add that because of
Senate respect for Hatfield, his bill, which could
come to the floor at any time, will be more ser
iously considered than others
Hatfield has said he proposed his bill
because of his exasperation each year with hav
ing anti-abortion funding amendments tie up
appropriations bills which he. as chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, has to guide
through the Senate
This is yet another reason why the Hatfield bill
stands the best chance of being passed of any
pending anti-abortion legislation, says Jan Bar
gen, director of the Salem NARAL chapter Most
Congressmen, not just Hatfield alone, are tired of
dealing with anti-abortion funding amendments
tacked on appropriation bills, she says The
Hatfield bill would do away with that annoyance
by making funding restrictions permanent, not a
year-to-year affair.
"But the funding restrictions in the bill are the
broadest yet proposed,” she says
Here are those restrictions:
• The funding provisions would continue to
deny Federal funds for abortion to Americans who
rely on government health care programs, except
when the life of the mother would be endangered
if the child were carried to term (This exception
holds wherever else it is applicable in the bill.)
• No Federal funds could be used to perform
an abortion NARAL contends that this is am
biguous Does this mean, asks Fitzsimmons, that
if a doctor is on a Federal salary his salary is
involved in an abortion performed after hours in a
private facility?
"That's extending it too far, an extreme
example'' counters Serratt This provision would
apply only to a doctor's pay for hours when he or
she is working for the Federal government, she
says.
• No Federal funds could be used “to refer
tor abortion.” Fitzsimmons asks if this standard is
violated when a doctor in a federally funded
facility refers a patient to Planned Parenthood,
but with no specific recommendation for treat
ment
Serratt, however, interprets the provision to
mean that a doctor can counsel a patient, but
cannot set up appointments "It's not our Inten
tion to keep people from getting information,” she
says
• Originally, the bill contained a provision
that no Federal funds could be used to teach
abortion techniques But Hatfield dropped that
provision because that it might have resulted in
funds being denied to medical schools that teach
abortion procedures for use only in the case of
danger to a mother's life
"The Senator is not fanatical," Serratt says
The bill would also allow any citizen to bring a
civil action for an alleged violation of the funding
provisions Usually, someone who brings a suit
must have a stake in the outcome of a case.
Fitzsimmons says He claims fear of such suits
would intimidate clinics, hospitals and doctors
Serratt says the bill’s right-to-sue (standing)
clause is the same as one in the Clean Air Act
"If Federal dollars are involved, the taxpayer
should have standing to sue," she contends
Finally, because the Hatfield approach is
more sophisticated than similar legislation — such
as the Helms human life statute — it's not obvious
one of its goals is the same: reversal of the 1973
Supreme Court decision that upheld the right to
abortion, Roe v Wade
The Hatfield bill states as a fact that “Unborn
children who are subjected to abortion are living
members of the human species " This fills in a
void in Roe v Wade, wherein the Court said, "We
need not resolve the difficult question of when life
begins ' Using this "human species" clause in a
state law would speed up Supreme Court review
of the whole abortion issue
How would this work’’
If a lower Federal court (District Court)
upholds a state anti-abortion law, the Hatfield bill
is designed so that parties challenging that law
must pursue, and pay for, their appeals through
the usual channels
On the other hand, if a Federal court throws
out any state law based on the Hatfield bill
"human species" finding, the decision can be
appealed directly to the Supreme Court So, in
effect, a decision against the right-to-life side
would be leap-frogged over any Federal Court of
Appeals to a Supreme Court which is decidely
more conservative than the 1973 Court Hatfield
hopes the Court then would see fit to re-evaluate
Roe v Wade and decide to eliminate the right to
abortion
Continued on Page 12
Get paid
for laying down
on the job!
Earn additional $ every
month, and provide a
precious human
resource
YOUR PLASMA
Eugene Plasma Corp.
1071 Olive 484-2241
“It pays to do good!”