PAGE 2
PROTECT OUR FREEDOM
BY MARGARET SHINDLER
The issue of abortion rights has become muddled in
recent years, and not by accident. Back in 1973, when Roe
vs. Wade won at the Supreme Court level, women began to
believe, after centuries of patriarchal dominance, that their
reproductive selves belonged to them. A young woman, such
as myself, just working her way into the world, could go to a
clinic nearby and kind health workers would teach her about
her body and give her information about birth-control options.
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy they were able to refer
her to an abortion clinic, if that were her choice. Choice. There
is the key word.
Today the same health workers are severely constrained
by law as to what they say to a woman and how they say it.Their
budgets have been cut, drastically limiting the number of women
to whom they can offer basic health and reproductive care. They
have to charge more, even to the poor.There are far fewer abor
tion clinics (78% of Oregon counties have no abortion provider;
87% of counties nationwide in the same boat),which means rural
women must travel expensive and time-consuming distances.
Birth control options have not improved since I was in
my 20s, trying to manage my very fertile self. I was able to use
an IUD, not the type that became the source of a big lawsuit, but
a Copper-7, which actually worked and was cheap. (This doesn’t
exist anymore.) Birth control pills are problematic for some
women. I felt horrible when I took them. Today's pill has a lower
dosage of hormone and this seems to have fewer side-effects,
from what friends tell me. Injection of Depro-Provera are given
now; I understand this is painful and has unpleasant side-effects.
My sister-in-law had to stop injections for health reasons. There
still remains the old diaphragm-and-jelly that has an uncomfort
ably high margin of error. I know from experience. And there is
the condom, so much fun to use.
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration, perhaps under
pressure from fringe groups, has not approved RU486 for public
use. Also known as the “abortion pill," it is taken to terminate
pregnancy in the first 7 to 9 weeks. The legal morning-after
option, known as “emergency contraception,” can be taken
within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy in
three ways, temporarily stopping an egg from being released,
stopping fertilization of the egg, or stopping the fertilized egg
from attaching. These options, however, do not address a
woman's need for reliable long-term birth control.
Thirty years after Roe vs. Wade birth control is still prob
lematic and abortion is becoming more limited. The very word
“abortion" can spark furious emotions and angry words. As I
write, the anti-choice movement is working to give constitutional
protection to the unborn, while the President works to cut Head
Start funding. A young woman today has to pay close attention
to the strange politics which are poised to change a status quo
she may have taken for granted; her rights over her own body
Powerful and well-funded political organizations, such as
the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee,
are working to change public opinion on the issue of abortion
rights. I found an example of their tactics while doing research
for this article. I went to my favorite Internet search machine,
‘Google’, and typed in Roe vs. Wade. Imagine my surprise
when the site that came up, called “roevwade.org," was made up
entirely of anti-abortion links and articles. They did start off with
the text of the Supreme Court ruling, but at this point I did not
trust anything I read there.The use of that website moniker was
under-handed and impudent. They do not play fair, and they do
not represent young, poor women of the hapless men who will
get slapped with 18 years of child support.
Is it my imagination, or have many formerly neutral folks
(past their fertile years) begun to parrot the buzz words of the
anti-choice movement, that abortion is a terrible crime? “Those
women should have those babies, give them up for adoption if
they can’t raise them!" I find this response to unwanted preg
nancy draconian. What about a ‘Right to Quality of Life’ move
ment?
I personally know four women who have had abortions
in the past six months. None had the financial means to take
on pregnancy, childbirth, and the huge ongoing responsibility
of raising a child None had a willing father in the wings, happy
to support them. They are all educated, some still students.
For each of the four, the discovery of pregnancy was not a
joyous event, it was a moment of sheer desperation and panic,
but they all knew they had an option out. They still have the
right to choose
The lives of these four are progressing well. Those who
were students are still in school instead of on welfare. Those
who are parents can concentrate on earning a living and having
time to spend with their kids. For these women the right to
choose meant the right to sanity and a better future. It meant
waiting until they were ready to become willing parents and have
the time to devote to active parenting. If forced to give birth none
would have given the child up, but what are the consequences
for a child born and raised under duress?
It is time to clarify the issue of a woman’s rights over her
body. “Family Planning" was a positive set of words when I was
20. I want those words and the concept they represent to come
back into style. It is time for the majority who want their repro
ductive rights intact to take a stand and begin talking again.
We love our children and care about all children That is why
we believe in a woman's right to choose.
It is time to take action on this issue The upcoming
Presidential election will include Oregon's first anti-choice ballot
measure in over 13 years — sponsored by Oregon Right to Life,
which already has almost $400,000 to support it. To get involved
with Oregonians for Choice, the pro-choice movement that is
getting underway on the coast, contact Rebecca Green, Pro-
Choice Coalition organizer E-mail rgeen@prochoiceoreqon.oro.
or call (503) 223-4510 ext #16
Join me in protecting our freedom.
Margaret Shindler lives in Gearhart
FRANCES JETTER
POLITICS AS USUAL
BY VANIA J. BRIGHTMAN
It was with a curious sadness that I watched President
Bush sign the “partial-birth abortion ban" bill into law. Upon
completing his signature, he stood smiling with a backdrop of
about 10 men in suits applauding. Not one, I’m guessing, was
under the age of 50 and not one, I’m willing to bet, has experi
enced the crushing blow of poverty.
This was politic as usual, right? Yet I felt a wounded
anger that disconcerted even me. Why should I care so much,
I thought, that these lawmakers who triumphantly applaud (as
if they've won) are all older, privileged men? Why should I care?
And I tamped down the deflated feeling I get so often these days
— the one reminding me that I am not represented adequately
and that my liberties are at risk.
I have studied the theoretical components of this Ameri
can system to the level of a master’s degree, and I must admit
that I more often focus on its flaws than its positives. However,
I have just witnessed a component of the American system that
I had only theoretically considered previously. It’s the amazing
three branches of government! And it’s the concept that says
that if two lose sight of democracy, the third might protect us
from losing our rights. And the third branch (the quieter one,
which doesn’t rely as heavily on elections) has come to my
ailing freedom’s aid.
As I write, at least three federal judges have granted
requests to block enforcement of the ban, citing that its broad
language could halt legal and safe procedures before the viabil
ity of a fetus and what’s more, that there was no clause for a
woman’s health. There was no clause for a woman's health!
“Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term, it is a politi
cal one. And the (mostly) men who created this law knew darn
well that there was no clause for a woman’s health These were
my leaders telling me that their opinions (based on a religious
foundation) mattered more than my health because there was
no clause for a woman's health.
In my democratic world, in which I have a voice and
a vote, this was hard to comprehend. Not only was I not
represented in the creation of that law, but it was created in
direct, negligent opposition to me because there was no clause
for a woman’s health.
The most powerful narrative that can be used to
blatantly override a woman’s health and rights is the narrative
that surrounds religion. However, part of the glory of our
Constitution and the democracy it affords us is freedom of
(as well as from) religion. Our framers were very explicit in this
desire to keep a concept as powerful as religion from impacting
political decisions.
Thus, and I speak directly to the politicians here, do not,
when you make a law that obviously hinders a person’s freedom
based on your religious (and by proxy, moral) beliefs, celebrate
your victory prematurely, because 1) taking my freedom is
serious business; and 2) there is a third branch of government
to protect me (unrepresented me!) when the others lose sight
of their purpose.
I assume there will always be, in my lifetime, a debate
over abortion. I don’t plan to convince anyone that abortion is
moral, or at times necessary, because I know I am entitled to
have my opinion, but I don’t get to force it on anyone else. And
I would not want it any other way because I am a proud demo
cratic American. Should I get to make the laws one day, abortion
opponents will always retain their democratic rights; never would
I create a bill that would neglect their health. Now if only my
“representation" would stop trying to take this basic right from
me.
Vania J. Brightman is a university administrator by day,
and a social studies teacher-in-training by night. This article is
reprinted from AlterNet.org
VA N PUSEN BEVERAGES
ASTORIA, OREGON
COLUMBIA RIVER
MARITIME MUSEUM
VISIT THE MUSEUM SHOP
IN ASTORIA, OREGON
325-2362
A M A gallery
ASTORIA VUSUAL ARTS
160 10™ ST., ASTORIA
BACK ON THE BLOCK 2 DOORS DOWN