Getting the Story Straight: The Press and "Partial-Birth
Abortion"
The day following oral arguments in the United States Supreme Court
"partial-birth abortion" case, Stenberg v. Carhart, the details of
the proceedings appeared as front-page news across the nation. That was no
surprise considering the impact the Justices' decision will have on the
future of women's choice. More significant was how several major news
sources, including The Associated Press, Washington Post and
L.A. Times, described the Nebraska statute under review - that is,
as a pre-viability abortion ban, and not a ban on late-term abortion
procedures. That recognition has been long in coming.
In 1995, when the first "partial-birth abortion" ban reared its head in
the state of Michigan, abortion opponents (including the National Right to
Life Committee, which helped write it) simultaneously initiated a cunning
publicity scheme, backed by millions of dollars, to mislead the public
into believing the ban was about "gruesome" late-term procedures. The
groups employed graphic drawings of fetuses aborted late in pregnancy. The
deceptive term "partial-birth abortion," which was concocted by abortion
opponents and is not recognized by the medical establishment, also seemed
to suggest abortions performed on viable fetuses. And the language
describing the ban was confusing and slippery, deliberately so it would
turn out.
In reality, the ban was a prohibition on pre-viability abortions. That
is, abortions performed early in pregnancy. After all, post-viability
abortions (those performed after approximately 24 weeks of pregnancy) are
already prohibited in most states unless the mother's health or life is
endangered. However, even the pro-choice movement initially bought into
this clever ruse, galvanizing attention on the tragic circumstances that
surround the very few abortions that are performed late in pregnancy. That
tactical decision proved to be a mistake that haunts the pro-choice
movement even today.
"We were initially forced to respond quickly to the rhetoric of the
other side," says Janet Benshoof, President of the Center for Reproductive
Law and Policy. "However, once we sat down and analyzed the statute it
became apparent that this ban was going to affect abortion procedures
during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. It certainly wasn't about
any specific procedure. In fact, it would make it a crime for a doctor to
perform many of the safest and most common abortion procedures available
today."
The judge in Michigan agreed. CRLP and other pro-choice groups won a
legal challenge to the Michigan statute on the grounds that it was
unconstitutionally vague and an undue burden on a woman's right of
reproductive choice. On July 31, 1997, U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen
ruled the law was so vague it could apply to more than 85% of post
first-trimester abortions. "Physicians ... simply cannot know with any
degree of confidence what conduct may give rise to criminal prosecution
and license revocation," wrote Judge Rosen in his opinion.
However, by that time, the anti-choice contingent's deceptive campaign
had already had a devastating effect. The terms "partial-birth abortion"
and "late term" abortion were now practically synonymous in the minds of
the press who, in turn, reinforced their skewed perceptions in story after
story.
Even today, after 18 courts have found these laws unconstitutional,
CRLP's communications deputy director Margie Kelly still spends a
considerable amount of her time educating the press. But those efforts
have been paying off.
One of the most profound changes occurred in The Associated Press's
coverage of the issue. For years this major news service described
"partial-birth abortion" laws as bans against late-term procedures despite
repeated calls by Kelly to protest their misleading and biased reporting.
She recalls one Nebraska AP reporter becoming so incensed that he stormed
off on a fact-checking mission to prove her wrong. However, after
rereading the Nebraska ban and conferring with the attorney general, he
determined Kelly was right. As he corrected his reporting, so did the rest
of the AP network.
The day the Supreme Court convened to hear Stenberg v. Carhart,
the AP headlined one story, "Top court considers state laws on
so-called "partial-birth" abortions." David Savage of the LA
Times wrote that the justices must decide "on how midterm
abortions are to be performed." Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg
was quoted on National Public Radio as saying "Contrary to widespread
public understanding, laws banning the procedure do not involve
third-trimester abortions." (Emphases added.)
And when the editors of the Baltimore Sun discovered they had
erred in their story, the paper took the initiative to print this
front-page correction the following day:
"An article yesterday about the Supreme Court's abortion hearing
described new laws under review as 'bans on certain late-term abortions.'
Whether the laws apply only to 'late-term abortions' or to others earlier
in pregnancy is a central issue the court will decide. The Sun
regrets the implication that the issue is already settled." Unfortunately,
falsehoods have a tendency to stick around. And the fabrication that is
termed "partial-birth abortion" made an early and deep impression that is
only now lessening.
-Ann Farmer
Beyond the Breast Cancer Myth
A stark black and white billboard looms over Interstate 95 near
Philadelphia, thrust on motorists by Family Life Education Foundation and
boldly displaying the provocative message: "abortion increases breast
cancer risk." In 1996, similar messages were posted on subways, buses and
trains in metropolitan Baltimore, Washington D.C. and Philadelphia by a
group called Christ's Bride Ministries (CBM). Matthew Staver, legal
counsel for CBM and other conservative religious groups, has defended this
anti-choice chicanery by saying, "I don't think the First Amendment
depends on truth. I think you can say things that are wrong." It appears
he is right on that count.
When CBM's message that "women who choose abortion suffer more and
deadlier breast cancer" first began appearing on public transportation,
health experts like Dr. Phillip Lee, the former assistant secretary of
health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, called them
"unfortunately misleading" and "unduly alarming." And when Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) discovered that there was
insufficient scientific evidence to back CBM's allegation that abortion
causes breast cancer, SEPTA decided to remove the advertisements and
refund CBM.
A protracted legal battle followed. SEPTA defended their right to
remove the misleading ads and won at the federal district court level on
the ground that the advertising space at issue did not constitute a public
forum and therefore SEPTA acted reasonably. However, in 1998, CBM won the
right to reinstate their message when the Federal Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit decided SEPTA had indeed created a public forum and violated
CBM's First Amendment rights by removing the posters. CBM was never
required to prove that their claims had any scientific merit.
"That's a price we pay for freedom of speech in this country," says
CRLP fellowship attorney, Suzanne Novak. "Sometimes people have the right
to make outrageous claims, regardless of their lack of validity."
To support their biased claim, anti-choice groups have frequently
touted a Daling, et al. study that showed some statistical
correlation between breast cancer and abortion. But the findings in this
study are inconsistent and the correlation it reveals is very weak in
epidemiological terms (see graph).
Overviews of the research published on this subject that found a
correlation between breast cancer and abortion were case-control studies
in which women with and without breast cancer were interviewed about their
medical history. Researchers have since proposed that healthy women
experience "recall bias," meaning that they are less likely to reveal
during an interview that they have had an abortion than are women with
serious medical conditions like cancer.
By contrast, a larger and more comprehensive 1996 Danish study by
Melbye, et al. and published in the New England Journal of
Medicine has become the basis on which organizations like the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Cancer Institute,
the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and the American Cancer Society
agree that there is insufficient evidence to prove that induced abortion
has an effect on the later development of breast cancer. The study tracked
1.5 million women through the Danish Cancer Registry and the National
Registry of Induced Abortion, thus avoiding the pitfalls of undersized
sample populations and the "recall bias" that occurs during personal
interviews. It concluded that the more than 300,000 women who had
abortions were no more likely to contract breast cancer than the 1.2
million with no history of abortion.
It is crucial to note that even the case control studies that showed a
statistical relationship between breast cancer and abortion did not
necessarily confirm a cause and effect relationship between the two. Dr.
Lynn Rosenberg has done several studies on breast cancer and abortion, and
explains it this way: "If someone studied a correlation between the number
of computers in use and the risk of breast cancer, there would be a
statistical correlation because the rate of breast cancer has been
increasing alongside an increasing rate of computer use. But this
certainly doesn't mean that computer usage is causing breast cancer."
In fact, no study has been able to demonstrate a biological mechanism
for how abortion could cause an increase in breast cancer risk. While
researchers studying breast cancer will continue to ask questions about
abortion, Dr. Rosenberg says that, "as far as most epidemiologists are
concerned, it has been a dead end. They're putting their efforts into
other areas."
But anti-abortion forces, feverishly bent on a campaign to convince
women not to exercise their right to choose, are not likely to lessen
their scare tactics, especially now that they've secured constitutional
protection for such inflammatory advertisements as the one greeting
drivers on Interstate 95. For one thing, they are dragging the discredited
cancer link issue into trials challenging abortion bans. When CRLP staff
attorney Bebe Anderson recently led the challenge against a Florida law
that requires teens to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion,
she was forced to produce an expert witness to dispute an alleged
abortion/breast cancer link raised by the State of Florida. "They were
attempting to dupe the judge by inventing health risks for abortion and
presenting inaccurate, unsubstantiated information," says Anderson. The
parental notice law has subsequently been struck down by a Florida state
trial court.
The attempt to misinform women has even reached the legislative level.
Bills have recently been introduced in New Jersey and Oklahoma requiring
clinics to inform women seeking abortions about an elevated risk for
breast cancer. If these bills become laws, they will stand in direct
opposition to the findings of the most comprehensive medical studies done
on this subject.
"The members of the anti-choice movement do not have women's health as
their main concern when they promote such legislation," says Anderson.
"They simply will use any means necessary, including the spread of
deceptive information, to frighten women into continuing an unwanted
pregnancy."
-Jill Molloy
New Women of the World Publication Features Francophone
Africa
In Senegal there is no law to protect women against marital rape.
"Marital rape is a term that simply doesn't exist," says Codou Bop, a
Senegalese women's rights activist with Groupe de recherche - femmes et
lois au Senegal (GREFELS). She adds, "Laws don't always solve problems,
but if there is no law it's as if you don't have the right to be free from
such violence."
Bop is well aware of the laws (and non-existent laws) impacting women
in her part of the world. She recently served as the regional coordinator
for CRLP's newest publication, Women of the World - Francophone Africa:
Laws and Policies Affecting their Reproductive Lives, which presents a
comprehensive review of women's reproductive health and rights in seven
Francophone Africa nations: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire,
Mali, Senegal and Chad.
The project, which took almost two years to complete, was a challenging
feat. "In many of those countries it's very hard to get access to written
laws," says CRLP's international program staff attorney Maryse Fontus, who
oversaw the project and edited the research contributed by women's rights
organizations from each country. "This is the first time that all these
countries' laws and policies affecting women's reproductive lives have
been compiled in one resource. So it's not only a practical legal guide
for rights advocates but it identifies problem issues in the region."
The 212-page report covers a broad range of topics. Each nation is
examined in terms of the country's political framework, its sources for
the governing laws, its customary laws and its policies on health,
population and family planning. In general, the seven Francophone African
nations share a lot of troubling similarities including restrictive
abortion laws, high maternal mortality rates, high prevalence rates for
HIV/AIDS, low contraceptive use and the continuation of harmful
traditional practices including polygamy and female circumcision/female
genital mutilation.
Women's legal status is examined in the context of their right to be
free from discrimination. For example, in Benin, only men (not women) may
ask for a divorce on the grounds of adultery.
A critical section on adolescents is included, especially as many of
these nations permit adolescents to marry, which often results in early
childbearing.
During the book's launch, which was held in Senegal in April,
representatives from the featured countries discussed strategies for
revising restrictive laws and adopting better ones. Benin, for example,
still has a 1920 law that bans abortion and contraceptive advertising.
Plans were formulated to meet with Benin's parliamentarians to explain how
that law contradicts international human rights norms, such as those
stated in the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women, a treaty Benin has ratified.
Also discussed was a law banning sterilization in Cote d'Ivoire, where
women often lack access to other methods of contraception. The punishment
for persons performing a sterilization procedure is the death penalty.
"It's very important that we get this and other laws that harm women
abolished," says Fontus, "and instead, convince lawmakers to draft new
laws that promote women's reproductive lives and well-being." As an
initial follow up to the WOW report, Fontus is organizing a
fact-finding mission to Benin to investigate the practice of forced
marriages.
-Ann Farmer
The Legal Age for Marriage*
In Mexico, Abortion Rights Strictly For the Books
Fourteen-year-old Paulina Ramirez Jacinta was raped last year by a
burglar who has since been jailed. Under Mexican law, Paulina was
permitted to terminate the unwanted pregnancy that resulted, and she was
firmly set on exercising that right. Until opposition forces proved too
fierce.
After Paulina was admitted by a public hospital for a first-trimester
abortion, she was visited by unidentified anti-choice extremists who
showed her graphic videos of abortions in a failed attempt to dissuade
her. Then physicians at the hospital refused to perform the procedure for
alleged conscientious reasons. So Paulina and her mother, Maria Elena
Jacinto, appealed to Baja California's Attorney General Juan Manual
Salazar Pimentel, the state's highest judicial official, for help. Instead
he escorted them to a Catholic priest who told them that abortion is a
sin.
But Paulina and her mother pressed on, determined that Paulina should
not be forced to become a mother at such a young age and under such
horrific circumstances. The attorney general reluctantly signed a new
order for an abortion. However, shortly before the procedure was to take
place, Paulina and her mother were frightened out of it by the hospital
director who exaggerated the health risks involved, emphasizing that
Paulina could suffer a fatal hemorrhage or be left sterile - even though
abortion is an extremely safe procedure. In April, the young teen
delivered by Caesarian section the baby that she will raise with the help
of her parents and with some economic assistance from several
non-governmental organizations.
"I am happy because everything went well, but I have a lot of anger,"
said Paulina's mother to the Associated Press shortly after the birth.
Since then, lawyers from two Mexican women's rights organizations, Epikeia
and GIRE (Information Group on Reproductive Choice), have filed criminal
and civil charges on Paulina's behalf. They have also taken the case to
the Baja California state human rights prosecutor, who has turned it over
to the National Human Rights Commission for review of probable human
rights offenses, as when the officials' permitted anti-choice extremists
into Paulina's hospital room and when they allowed their personal views to
dictate her treatment rather than respecting Mexican law. Paulina's
attorneys are requesting state funds to help support Paulina and her child
until he reaches 18 years of age. In addition, Paulina has become
something of a cause celebre in Mexico, attracting the support of numerous
women's and human rights groups, and several dozen Mexican intellectuals
including the novelist Carlos Fuentes.
Isabel Vericat, one of Paulina's attorneys, says the most extraordinary
thing about this case are the courageous actions Paulina and her mother
took. "First of all, they denounced the rape, which is very uncommon for a
rape victim to do in Mexico," says Vericat. "Then they demanded the right
to a legal abortion in a public hospital, which is also practically
unheard of. Very few women dare to publicly challenge the machismo and
Catholic-dominated establishment the way Paulina and her mom have done."
Mexican abortion laws, which are regulated at the state level, are
highly restrictive. It is estimated that as many as half a million Mexican
women undergo illegal, clandestine abortions each year. While
first-trimester procedures are permitted for rape victims or women whose
lives are endangered by the pregnancy, Baja California state Rep. Martin
Dominquez Rocha recently made the alarming proposal that the state's penal
code be changed to eliminate the rape exception. Rocha is aligned with the
socially conservative political party known as PAN (the National Action
Party), which is closely affiliated with the Catholic Church and is
backing a strong contender in the presidential elections to take place on
July 2. Pro-choice advocates are particularly concerned about a PAN
platform to reform the national constitution to recognize life from the
moment of conception.
Vericat spent last fall as a visiting attorney with the Center for
Reproductive Law and Policy to hone her expertise in the area of
reproductive and sexual rights within an international framework. She says
that if Paulina does not receive satisfactory relief from the state, and
if all other national legal remedies are exhausted, her case will be
submitted to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. This is the
same body that held a hearing last fall involving the Peruvian government
and an indigenous woman who was raped by a doctor employed in a public
hospital. CRLP attorneys helped negotiate a settlement favorable to the
Peruvian woman and would assist in Paulina's case as well. GIRE is also
arranging a workshop in Mexico in July at which CRLP attorneys will give a
presentation on the various international monitoring mechanisms and
strategies for defending women's reproductive rights.
-Ann Farmer
Report from the Front Line (that is, the waiting
line)
Four CRLP staffers waited outside all night to snag seats
for the oral arguments in the Supreme Court "partial-birth abortion" case,
Stenberg v. Carhart.
Julie Kay, Staff Attorney
The rain came pouring down at seven a.m., just as a blaring noise began
emanating from a bullhorn aimed at the crowd that had been standing,
sitting and sometimes sleeping on the United States Supreme Court steps
for almost 12 hours. The man's voice over the bullhorn wildly berated the
pro-choice movement while a Winnebago covered with inflammatory abortion
pictures slowly circled the block. Although pro-choice supporters were
outnumbered by anti-choice advocates by almost four to one, we were not
daunted, knowing that our side would be heard equally inside the Supreme
Court.
Away from the clamor, the actual courtroom at the Supreme Court is
surprisingly small and quiet, an impressive dark mahogany and white marble
retreat. At 10 a.m. precisely, an "all rise" sounded and the red curtains
to either side of the bench parted as the Justices entered.
The Court gave each attorney 30 minutes to present his side of the
argument. The Justices' questions came rapidly, often overlapping one
another. Gradually, the rhythm of a polite banter took hold. Through it
all, the Justices appeared to be directing largely rhetorical questions at
each other from some predetermined position rather than searching to
develop a position on the legal issues at stake here. And then it ended.
In less time than it takes to proofread a brief, the arguments were over.
There was no formal "thank you," no definitive ending, no applause or
bows.
DeAna Hare, Development Associate
The most interesting part of the wait to get in was observing the
gender dynamics of the anti-choice contingent. The majority of those
waiting in line were women, both young and old. The majority of the
spokespeople were men.
Early in the morning, two men came around and brought the women food
and juice. The men were extremely paternalistic and took pains to act like
they were caring for and protecting these women. But the women had been
the ones standing in line all night! These men were willing to be the
heroes, to swoop in rested and scrubbed to preach in front of the Court,
but were unwilling to actually put their bodies on the front lines.
The men who lead the anti-choice movement talk, moralize, yell and
condemn, but their bodies aren't the bodies at stake. The bodies of the
women they claim to protect are the ones at stake, and I don't understand
why these women don't see that their male leaders are not concerned with
protecting fetuses or women, but with having control. If the anti-choice
movement were really concerned with protecting fetuses, it would work for
comprehensive prenatal care. If these men were really concerned about the
women they work with, they wouldn't demonize women by implying that they
abuse measures designed to protect their health.
Karen Raschke, Staff Attorney and Director, State
Program
It was our 15th wedding anniversary. And it was my husband Don's idea.
He suggested we spend Monday night at a hotel near the Supreme Court, so
we could get up before dawn, stand in line, and then watch the argument
together. What better way to cap off our romantic weekend celebration?
There was none.
I'll never forget the first piece of mail I got after I moved in with
Don: a letter telling me of an abnormal pap smear. Several days later, the
gynecological oncologist diagnosed me with cervical cancer.
Don and I had to decide right away whether we wanted to have children
in the future, because our decision would influence my treatment options.
My life was never in any danger, but my future fertility was. Our first
very personal decision was to decline a hysterectomy. We decided to try
everything else first. However, five years later I had a hysterectomy.
No one told my husband and me that the government preferred childbirth
over sterility and that I should continue a course of medical treatment
that would best protect that government bias. No politicians dictated the
content of the informed consent documents I signed. No legislative body
directed my physician as to what procedures to use under risk of criminal
prosecution.
Yet over the last 15 years, the Supreme Court has allowed Congress and
the states to express a preference for childbirth. I always wonder what
would happen if our government determined that America has too many
people, that we need to have fewer pregnancies. Will my husband and I be
among the lucky ones who chose hysterectomy on our own?
Zoe Oxaal, Development Associate
Attending the Supreme Court hearing was like a rite of passage for this
"new American." Before I moved here a year ago, I read an official U.S.
handbook on the constitution and government several times. Being part of
CRLP has extended my civic education into the far corners of American life
- the legal and healthcare systems, the politics, the abortion controversy
and the stories of women from nearly every state.
But waiting in line overnight outside the Court brought me as close as
I've come to religious fundamentalism - U.S. style. "Partial-birth
abortion" ban proponents may have tried to portray this issue as narrow
and moderate, but during their candlelit vigil on the court steps their
extreme agenda was clear. Speakers blamed abortion for all of society's
ills. Abortion, they said, was at the root of a tragic shooting that day
by a teen at the D.C. zoo. Their real purpose is to turn Americans against
all abortion, and "partial-birth abortion," they admitted, was just the
start. The separation of church and state was anathema to them. They
prayed for God to intervene in the hearts of the justices, but they meant
only their God - an anti-choice God.
On the Docket
Florida Court Rejects Argument for Medicaid Funding of
Abortions
Current Status: The latest step in a seven-year legal battle
ended on April 20, 2000, when the three-judge panel in Tallahassee,
Florida's First District Court of Appeal rejected arguments that Florida
should pay for abortions of poor women if their health is endangered
during pregnancy.
Background: Although the filing of the case dated back to March
1993, the challenge to Florida's prohibition on Medicaid funding of
medically necessary abortions wasn't heard till June 1998, due to legal
procedural issues. Lawyers for five Medicaid-eligible women, eight
abortion clinics, two doctors and a non-profit organization providing
financial assistance to women who cannot afford abortions, argued that the
ban on Medicaid coverage for this procedure - except in the rare instance
that the pregnancy is life-threatening or the result of rape or incest -
violates the state's constitutional guarantees to privacy, equal
protection and equality. In October, 1998, the Second Judicial Court for
Leon County ruled against the plaintiffs, prompting an appeal.
The appeals court decision, siding with the state's position, followed
a February 16, 2000 hearing to overturn the Judicial Court's ruling. While
13 other states have been required to fund medically necessary abortions
for low-income women in the last five years, the appeals panel ruled that
the "policy decision to fund prenatal care and childbirth expenses, but
not abortion, does not coerce indigent women to carry a pregnancy to term,
nor does it penalize them if they choose to have an abortion."
Additionally, the panel stated that "although women may have the right to
an abortion under the state Constitution, there is no entitlement to
sufficient state funds to enable one to exercise that right." Plaintiffs'
lawyers have filed an appeal in Florida's Supreme Court and are waiting
for a response.
Plaintiffs in Renee B. v. State of Florida, No. 99-1238 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. April 20, 2000), are represented by CRLP Staff Attorney
Bonnie Scott Jones and Larry Helm Spalding of the ACLU Foundation of
Florida.
-Ellen Weiman
Florida Parental Notice Law Permanently Enjoined
Current Status: On May 12, 2000, the Florida legislature's
second attempt to require parental involvement for minors seeking
abortions was struck down by a state court. The law was found to be
unconstitutional by Judge Terry P. Lewis, who explained that, "[The law]
sends the message to the hypothetical 13-year-old - if you make the choice
we want you to [i.e., not to have an abortion], we will leave you alone.
If you don't, we are going to make it more difficult for you to exercise
your choice. This is exactly the kind of government interference into
personal, intimate decisions that the privacy clause protects against."
The ruling is on appeal to the state court of appeals.
Background: Florida's parental notice law has been blocked since
July 26, 1999, when Judge Lewis issued a temporary injunction. The law
sought to require physicians to notify at least one parent or legal
guardian of any young woman seeking an abortion at least 48 hours before
the procedure is performed. Young women could seek a court order
authorizing the procedure in lieu of having her parents notified.
Penalties for violating the law included loss of the doctor's license to
practice medicine.
The first Florida parental involvement law (which required parental
consent) was found unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court in 1989 on
the grounds that the state constitution extends the same right to privacy
to young women as it does to adult women. This decision joins several
other state court decisions recognizing that parental involvement laws
fail to serve any valid state interest. Currently, courts in seven states
have blocked parental involvement laws.
Plaintiffs in North Florida Women's Health & Counseling
Services, Inc. v. State of Florida, No. 99-3202 (Leon County Ct. May
12, 2000), include 12 abortion providers and clinics, as well as women's
rights groups from across Florida. They are represented by Bebe Anderson
and Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, local
cooperating attorney Charlene Carres, and Dara Klassel of the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America.
-Jon Weiss
Correction
In the May RFN, in the story on page
4 regarding mandatory wait laws, the counselor quoted is affiliated with
the "Clinic for Women" in Indianapolis, Indiana, not "A Women's Choice"
health clinic.