The Senate last Thursday approved the final version of legislation that makes it a federal crime to attack or blockade abortion clinics, their operators or their patrons. President Clinton has said he will sign it.
I am happy with this development for a number of reasons. One is that I have first-hand knowledge of the type of disruption radical anti-abortion groups can cause.
At my home in New York, the neighboring town of Dobbs Ferry houses a Planned Parenthood clinic that has been under constant attack by Operation Rescue for several years. The financial strain on the town of about 7,000 residents and the physical strain on its police force of about 12 men has been enormous.
When Operation Rescue comes to town, it affects not only the targeted clinic, but a whole community of people, most of whom have never even considered having an abortion. Taxpayers uninvolved in either side of the abortion-rights debate end up having to pay for the mess that Operation Rescue and other such groups inevitably cause.
The harassment of patients going in and out of the clinics should be deplored. It is often forgotten in this debate that clinics such as Planned Parenthood are not mere abortion factories: they offer a wide range of gynecological and pre-natal services.
In addition, it is not only poor women who take advantage of these services. A number of my friends at home use Planned Parenthood to obtain birth control, not primarily for the lower cost, but because they like the confidentiality of the service. People who blockade clinics impede women seeking to avoid unwanted pregnancies as well as those seeking abortions.
Abortion is a difficult and personal decision that nobody wishes to make. But once the decision is made, it should be respected. After all, the woman who decides to have an abortion is the one who has to live with the guilt for the rest of her life, much more so than any other concerned parties. Anyone who knows someone who has gone through an abortion knows it is a painful process, both physically and emotionally. A friend of mine still remembers the day every year with sadness.
That is why I never really have bought the anti-abortion movement's claim to a moral high ground. If they think women do not think twice before having an abortion, they are sorely mistaken. Anti-abortion activists would do much to alleviate their problem if they were to pour their efforts into expanded access to birth control for women and men. It seems to me the emphasis should be on avoiding the necessity of abortion rather than blocking it once pregnancy has already occurred.
The ugly underside of the anti-abortion argument is that it discriminates unfairly against poor women, and due to their over representation in this group, women of color. Poor women often have no other place to go when they are pregnant except a clinic. The last thing they need to see when they get there is a group of white protesters bussed in from all over the country to tell them how to live their lives. A poor woman should have full control over her reproductive capacity just as a wealthier woman does.
Opponents of the bill argue that it outlaws civil disobedience tactics for one group of protesters in a much harsher fashion than other groups. Usually such acts as chaining oneself to an entranceway would carry a $100 fine and a night in jail. Opponents argue that the same people who took part in the civil disobedience of the '60s and '70s on behalf of their own causes are acting hypocritically against protesters with whom they do not agree.
At first this argument seems to hold some weight. However, scratch the surface and one realizes that anti-abortion groups have little if any claim to the legacy of the civil rights movement or antiwar movement to which they are alluding. It is my educated guess that many of these stalwart advocates of the rights of the unborn had very little sympathy for the rights of the already born during the struggle for black equality in the '60s, the women's movement in the '70s or the other rights movements of the past few decades.
African-Americans who staged sit-ins at lunch counters and who participated in the "Freedom Rides" were truly peaceful protestors. They did not bomb restaurants, nor did they kill racist train conductors. Furthermore, the civil rights struggle was concerned with extending rights to a historically disadvantaged group, not taking them away. You can talk about the rights of the unborn until you are blue in the face, but the bottom line is that anti-abortion protesters are not among the most rights-conscious people in society.
I respect the opinion of anyone who is morally opposed to abortion; I am ambivalent about the subject myself. However, the overall thrust of groups like Operation Rescue is to restrict the most basic rights of women.
By chaining themselves to doorways, setting off bombs, threatening and killing doctors, they send the message that women are not capable of making their own reproductive decisions. If anti-abortion groups think this country is in moral trouble, perhaps they are right. But the way to go about it is to develop a spirit of camaraderie in individual communities, not to harass and intimidate the very members of society whose behavior they wish to change.
The new law will begin to put a stop to just that.
