Reproductive Rights on the Hill

Everyday around America, the battle for women’s reproductive rights is being fought by volunteers, physicians, patients, and lawyers on street corners, at abortion clinics, in the ballot box, and in the courts. Indeed, the recent flurry of activity in the Supreme Court, with the confirmations of new Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, has kicked up a dust storm over reproductive rights in America. Hardly a day goes by without some pundit speculating if the infamous Roe v. Wade decision might not be overturned in the near future now that a shift in the balance of power on the court seems imminent.
And the Supreme Court does seem like the ideal stage for such an intense issue as a woman’s right to an abortion to be decided. What could be more dramatic, and more decisive, than the actual people that reproductive rights affects, their lawyers, and the opposition arguing passionately before nine justices whose rulings are final? Unfortunately, while all of the battles in the courts have been drawing the public’s attention for the abortion fight, other arenas of combat have been passing unnoticed. Since as long ago as 1995, the United States Congress has been acting on the abortion issue, often with disastrous results for those who support reproductive rights.
In the period of time between 1995 and 1996, Congress passed the first ever federal abortion ban, which was vetoed by then President Bill Clinton. Amazingly, the House of Representatives was able to override Clinton’s veto, and the measure was only narrowly defeated in the Senate, where it was unable to muster the necessary votes required to become law.
Ever since this close call, the fight on Capitol Hill over a federal abortion ban has been raging. From 1997 up until the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000, Congress came close to passing measures similar to that of 1995, always narrowly missing the passing number of votes, but trying again and again. Finally, in June of 2000, a US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart struck down a Nebraska state abortion ban, and seemed to put a damper on the pro-life push for one on the national level.
Once again though, the conservatives on the Hill were not to be deterred by what some would call a strong legal signal. With the encouragement of President George W. Bush, a Republican Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, which was promptly signed into law by the president on November 5th of that year. When the measure went into effect, the Bush White House, and the conservative leadership on Capitol Hill immediately told the public that the law only outlawed “partial birth abortions,” making it seem like less of a hard pill to swallow. Unfortunately, the wording of the ambiguously phrased document made it far more dangerous to women’s rights than advertised.
The act made no exceptions to the ban for women who faced health problems, and did not deal with cases of sever fetal anomalies. Furthermore, the law did not use medical definitions to describe the procedure that has been labeled “partial birth abortion.” Consequently, the act outlaws steps that are often used by doctors performing abortions only in the second trimester, criminalizing abortions as early as 12 weeks.
Naturally, it didn’t take long for women’s advocates to challenge the Partial Birth Abortion Act. Rallying behind Dr. LeRoy Carhart of Nebraska, the Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law in court, and has thus far experienced success. On September 8, 2004, US District Court Judge Richard Kopf ruled against the government in the case of Carhart v. Gonzales, handing Congress and the Bush White House a sound defeat, saying that the federal ban posed a “significant health hazard to women.” On September 26, 2005, however, the government asked the US Supreme Court to review Judge Kopf’s decision, placing even this victory in jeopardy.
Although the federal abortion ban sits in the courts, the pro-lifers on the Hill haven’t been idle. On April 27, 2005, a proposal entitled the Teen Endangerment Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 270-157, and is currently sitting in the Senate. If enacted, this law would make it a felony offense for any person other than a parent or guardian to knowingly transport a minor across state lines to receive an abortion, and would impose a federal parental notification and mandatory delay law restricting the ability for out of state doctors to perform an abortion on a minor, even if parents are present. Needless to say, this act puts an incredible burden on young women in difficult family situations who need access to reproductive healthcare, as well as criminalizes adults such as grandparents, aunts and uncles, who are only trying to assist them.
Perhaps even more disturbing than this is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), which passed the House of Representatives by 254-163 and the Senate by 61-38 in 2004. Instantly signed into law by President Bush, this recognizes “a fertilized egg as a crime ‘victim’,” according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. While perhaps benign on the surface, UVVA is a dangerous step towards the federal government officially recognizing an embryo as a living person, something that would spell grave defeat for pro-choice proponents everywhere. The law itself does not protect pregnant women from violence, but is rather a thinly veiled effort to sneak pro-life dialogue into national law. Indeed, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, on of the most vocal opponents of women’s reproductive rights, stated that “they say it [UVVA] undermines abortion rights. It does.”
All of this seems to point to one thing: women’s advocates are fighting a loosing battle in Congress. Indeed, with the current balance of power (a Republican Congress, a Republican White House, and a Court that seems to get more conservative every day) the outlook for reproductive rights looks grim. All that can be hoped is that the elections of 2006 will restore a more favorable balance of power in the Senate (I’m thinking about you, Mr. Hatch) and that successes can still be achieved in the courts. In the words of Dr. LeRoy Carhart, “It’s a shame that I have to continue going to court, fighting the same fight to protect my patients’ health. But if the government takes this battle to the Supreme Court, I will fight to be able to provide the safest care for my patients.” As long as there are still some Dr. Carharts around, the fight for women’s rights will never be totally lost.