|
Democrats, Republicans attack women’s rights
by Rebecca Doran
A common goal of the feminist movement has always been for the end
of sex discrimination and abolishment of the second-class status of women.
One of the most vital issues pertaining to this goal is the right to reproductive
freedom and accessible health care, without which, women are constrained to
the shackles of unwanted pregnancies, sickness, and an inability to function
in society with the same facility as men.
In recent months, however, the right wing has stepped up its attacks
against these rights to a new, more disturbing level. In what is being
called another
backdoor attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, a last-minute addition to
the $338 billion spending bill signed by President Bush in November could
have a
serious impact on women’s right to reproductive freedom.
Without any debate, the so-called Abortion Non-Discrimination Act
was attached to the bill. This act essentially legalizes discrimination
against
women, allowing any doctor, hospital, or insurer in the United
States to refuse to perform or pay for abortions—or to even inform pregnant
women that the
option to end a pregnancy exists. And this means of discrimination
can now extend to employers, who are in the position to decide which health
plans their
companies will offer.
The amendment to the spending bill is in line with the gag order
President Bush signed on his third day in office that withholds U.S. aid
from foreign health clinics if an employee even mentions abortion as an option.
Although physicians who oppose abortion are not required by law to perform
the procedure, the new policy allows anti-choice hospital chiefs to silence
every doctor and nurse employed at their facilities in regard to abortion.
This discriminatory act overrides laws in California and other
states that guarantee women the right to choose. Accordingly, on Dec. 8,
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced he would go to court to challenge
the amendment. He noted that it affects California more than other states
because the state has strong abortion-rights laws and a constitutional right
to privacy, which requires the state to remain neutral toward the options
of childbirth and abortion, and to pay for abortions for low-income women
under Medi-Cal.
Lockyer went on to point out that the state requires every hospital,
including those that oppose abortion, to perform the procedure if
childbirth would endanger the woman’s life. Under the new spending-bill amendment,
however, enforcing this state law could require California to forfeit
millions in federal
funds.
On top of this new anti-abortion amendment, there are several other
bills currently in the congressional hopper, such as the Unborn Child Pain
Awareness Act. This bill was
introduced by Senator Sam Brownback
(R-Kan.) and was brought to life under so-called scientific research
in connection with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, which has purportedly
proven that an unborn child's response to pain is more intense than
the response of an adult because the infant in the womb lacks the nerve
wrappings and acquired psychological defenses that mitigate pain for
adults.
Another bill before Congress, called the Post-Abortion Depression
Research and Care Act, would legislate the manipulation of women with
anti-choice propaganda under the guise of scientific and social research.
The bill, which reads like a 1950s high-school psychology book, claims that
“abortion can have severe and long-term effects on the mental and emotional
well-being of women.”
It states: “Women often experience sadness and guilt following
abortions with no one to console them. They may have difficulty in bonding
with new babies, become overprotective parents or develop problems in their
relationship with their spouses. Problems such as eating disorders, depression
and suicide attempts have also been traced to past abortions.
“The symptoms of post-abortion depression include bouts of crying, guilt,
intense grief or sadness, emotional numbness, eating disorders, drug and
alcohol abuse, suicidal urges, anxiety and panic attacks, anger/rage,
sexual problems or promiscuity, lowered self esteem, nightmares and sleep
disturbance, flashbacks, and difficulty with relationships.”
These measures by Congress and the White House have greatly
emboldened the anti-abortion movement. In San Francisco, anti-abortion
groups have announced the first-ever “March for Life,” scheduled for Jan.
22—the
anniversary of Roe v. Wade. In this historically pro-choice city,
anti-choice activists have now found a basis on which to organize against
women’s rights.
Pro-choice activists are planning a counter-protest action on the
same date. So far, unfortunately, the major pro-choice groups in the Bay
Area have been less than zealous in building the event. The main leaders of
San Francisco’s pro-choice movement—like their counterparts nationwide—are
tied closely to the Democratic Party, and generally subordinate mass-action
activities in favor of campaigning for Democratic politicians.
Now an alarming trend has surfaced in the Democratic Party, which
can lead only to a further deterioration of the already weak pro-choice
movement. In light of recent election losses, leading party members have embarked
on a campaign to appeal to anti-abortion voters and candidates.
Former presidential candidate Howard Dean, who says he supports
abortion rights, proposed that the Democrats "embrace" anti-abortion
voters and expand the term "pro-life" to such social issues as
providing for children's medical care. "I have long believed that we ought
to make a home for pro-life Democrats. … We can have a respectful dialogue,
and we have to stop demagoguing this issue," Dean, a candidate for
Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman, said on NBC's "Meet the
Press” in December.
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has encouraged Tim Roemer, a
former representative with a strong voting record against abortion, to run
for the DNC. Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said the congresswoman would
continue to be a vocal supporter of abortion rights in Congress, but would
not oppose an anti-abortion party leader.
The Democrats' new minority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid of
Nevada, also stands in opposition to the right to reproductive freedom.
The unwillingness of the Democrats to uphold and extend women’s reproductive
rights was seen during the 2004 election campaign. Sen. John Kerry stated
during his bid for the White House that he would have no qualms about
nominating anti-choice judges to federal posts. And some so-called
pro-choice Democratic Party spokespeople emphasized that, like Kerry, they believe
that “abortion should be rare.” This stance lends itself to placing restrictions
on women who wish to get abortions, while giving support to the antiquated idea
that women need to justify themselves or apologize to society for seeking
to control their own bodies.
Unfortunately, these attempts by the politicians to better
accommodate themselves to the religious and moral beliefs of the most
reactionary sector of the U.S. capitalist class does not seemed to have discouraged
the leading women’s organizations from supporting the Democratic Party.
Feminists, both women and men, must stand up and break from the suffocating
restraints of both parties of the ruling rich. Given the current ferocity
of the war against women’s rights, the old fear that the Supreme Court will
overturn Roe v. Wade might become a moot point, as abortion already will
have been wholly banned by bills and amendments authored by both parties.
*This
article first appeared in the January 2005 issue of Socialist Action
newspaper.
|
