nothin Roe v. Wade—Down, Not Out | New Haven Independent

Roe v. Wade — Down, Not Out

Reva%20Siegel.jpgAre abortion rights in the U.S. soon to be a thing of the past? Some of the pro-choice movement’s biggest legal brains hashed out that question before a standing room only crowd at Yale Law School.

The Thursday night forum was titled, What remains of Roe v Wade? Reproductive Justice after the Federal Abortion Ban.”

carhart%20audience.jpgPeople fighting for the same goal often embrace different tactics to achieve their ends, said Yale law prof Reva Siegel (pictured). Thus, anti-abortion forces split into two camps: absolutists (“Abortion is murder — period”) and incrementalists (“Let’s chip away at Roe v. Wade until it crumbles”). Those in the latter camp scored a major victory in the Supreme Court last spring. The pro-choice speakers and audience at the forum (some of whom are pictured) gathered to discuss the way forward.

The April Gonzales v. Carhart decision ruled that outlawing a certain second-trimester abortion procedure (medically called intact dilation and extraction,” labeled partial birth abortion” by anti-abortion activists) is not unconstitutional. It thus upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress years earlier, which had been slapped down by three separate federal district court rulings because it did not contain an exception to allow abortion to protect the pregnant woman’s health.

Siegel explained how the incrementalist anti-abortion movement used the language of feminism against choice: Women should be protected from harm to them, and they should be protected from coercion, so, the argument goes, they need to be protected from abortion. This was the language of PTSD, and coercion and trauma and feminism all jumbled up with this claim.”

She listed several examples of incrementalist chipping-away at abortion rights, such as mandatory dialogues, waiting periods, parental notice provisions. What’s powerful about this form of argument,” she said, is that in fact it’s tapping on norms that everyone in this room shares — we’re not looking for women to be coerced into doing something they don’t want; we don’t want things for women that are harmful to them.” Click here to hear more.

Siegel said the purpose of the Abortion Ban Act was to pick at the question of abortion at an uncomfortable spot, and to teach through education, to get into detailed public conversation about abortion practice — a teaching process that would ultimately produce unease among persons who conceived of themselves as supportive, basically, of the right to choose.”

She said, The debate between absolutists and incrementalists is ongoing.” Click here for more on how one anti-abortion group excoriated those who took credit for the Supreme Court victory.

eve.jpgEve Gartner (pictured) is an attorney for Planned Parenthood who argued the companion case to the Carhart case at the Supreme Court. She said the Carhart decision was a radical departure from Court precedence, because, among other things, it’s the first time a restriction on abortion was ruled Constitutional despite the lack of a health exception (i.e., abortion in the second trimester has been legal to protect the health of the woman).

Gartner laid out a fairly dismal scenario going forward, but stopped short of total despair. She said she doesn’t believe that Justice Anthony Kennedy — who was the pivotal vote in the case and who laid out an argument that women must be protected from the regret that could follow an abortion- — would vote to overturn Roe v Wade completely. He’s not going to turn his back on it completely. He just has a very, very cramped and restrictive view of what the abortion right is. And so, I think it’s not hopeless. I think public education is a key part of where we go from here, and politics is a key part of where we go from here. I think that over time, the Court’s rulings on abortion have tended to mimic public opinion about certain restrictions.”

sondra.jpgThe last speaker was Sondra Goldschein from the ACLU (pictured). She said in the past decade over a thousand bills have been introduced across the country that have tried to place obstacles before women trying to access abortion, contraception, sex education.” Thirty-five states have laws requiring minors to get permission from their parents or a court to access abortion; Medicaid in 32 states only cover abortion if it’s the result of rape or incest or a woman’s life is at risk; 31 states have passed laws that mirror the federal ban; seven states have passed laws that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will be immediately banned. Click here to hear about more legal hurdles.

Goldschein ended by inviting the law students in the room to get involved, or, in the case of members of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, which co-sponsored the forum, to continue to work on the issue.

Sign up for our morning newsletter

Don't want to miss a single Independent article? Sign up for our daily email newsletter! Click here for more info.


Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

Avatar for NNHC@hotmail.com

Avatar for cedarhillresident!

Avatar for nhhc@hotmail.com

Avatar for dana b

Avatar for NNHC@hotmail.com

Avatar for dana b