At the Republican national convention last year, George W. Bush accepted his nomination by emphasizing his need to unite the American people and to look beyond their differences. However, his first week in office has started with two controversial moves that have polarized the nation in opinion and action.
The first of these moves was the nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General. For years, Ashcroft has placed the goal of banning abortion at the top of his agenda, even in the cases of rape or incest, according to the National Abortion Federation, a pro-choice organization. His nomination was met with great opposition from certain lobbyist groups, especially the vocal NAF.
The NAF stated in an urgent press release issued Jan. 16 that "[Ashcroft] will not enforce the laws protecting abortion providers and their patients." The federation holds that Ashcroft has criticized the decision that allowed states to restrict harassing and threatening behavior of anti-choice protesters outside of clinics because it weakened the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees.
The second controversial move of the new administration immediately followed Bush's inauguration. Bush signed an executive order on Monday morning to end American funding for international family planning organizations that offer abortions or abortion counseling.
Reactions to Bush's move have been fiercest in Europe where Anna Diamantopoulou, EU Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, said she was disappointed, fearing it "may be a signal of things to come."
"To anyone outside the United States [Bush's move] is extremely strange," said population expert Professor John Hobcraft of the London School of Economics in an interview with CNN. "It is really about being completely antiabortion and trying to do everything you can to sabotage any organization that is in anyway promoting abortion." However, there are others who support Bush's decision.
The "Mexico City Policy," which Bush is reinstating through this executive resolution, was introduced originally by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It was known then as the "global gag rule" and was reversed by the Clinton administration in 1993.
Other services, including family planning, education and health facilities will be affected by Bush's action this week.
Pro-choice activists in the United States have been angered by Bush's sudden move, while pro-lifers are questioning whether or not Bush went far enough. "I would love to say that I was thrilled, but I'm not," said Judie Brown, leader of the American Life League in an interview Tuesday. "He won't be strong enough for the ultimate reversal of Roe v. Wade."
Both sides -- pro-choice and pro-life -- are placing special significance on Bush's controversial actions because this week is not only Bush's first in office but also the week of the 28th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling. This landmark abortion decision voided down the abortion laws of nearly every state.
Norma McCorvey (alias "Jane Roe") brought forth the only successful suit of a group of test cases designed to challenge the validity of the Texas abortion statute, which prohibited abortions except to save a woman's life.
Women had very restricted access to legal abortion, leading some to resort to dangerous illegal abortions performed by poorly trained practitioners, often in unsanitary conditions. After examining the Texas Law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy found in the Constitution included the right of women to decide whether or not to bear children.
The Court ruled that in the first trimester of pregnancy, state laws and regulations can not interfere with a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. During the second trimester, state laws and regulations can control abortion in order to protect the woman's health. During the last trimester, state laws and regulations may prohibit abortion except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.
The means applied by states to decide whether an abortion can be performed is called "strict scrutiny" analysis. The woman's right to an abortion could only be outweighed by a compelling state interest, and the state law needed to be narrowly drawn so as not to interfere with a woman's right to abortion more than necessary.
Since the Roe v. Wade decision, many other controversial court cases have been brought under the spotlight of the media. Although 88 percent of abortions are performed during the first trimester, the focus in many legal battles has been late-term abortions. Of these, none are perhaps as delicate as the issue of the so-called "partial-birth abortion."
"Partial-birth" abortion -- or intrauterine cranial decompression -- is performed in the second and third trimesters only and entails (1) inducing a breech delivery, (2) delivering the legs, arms and torso only, (3) puncturing the back of the skull with scissors, (4) inserting a suction into the skull, (4) suctioning the skull so as to collapse it, and then (5) completing the delivery.
A partial breech is not considered a "birth" in common law, where it is the passage of the head that is essential. Laws to ban this uniquely controversial procedure have been passed in at least 30 states.
While these laws claim an exception when it is the mother's life in question, they do not account for the mother's general health. Opponents claim that not having this kind of clause is unconstitutional.
Recently, three states' partial-birth abortion laws were deemed unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit, and pro-life activists are worried that this could start a trend in future lawmaking.
While the actual abortion procedures are often the topic of hot debate, so is the matter of abortion funding. In November, Alaska's Supreme Court heard arguments on the state legislature's decision to rescind Medicaid funding for medically necessary abortions and to fund abortion only in the cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the woman.
The Court decided that it could not favor one reason for abortion over another and the legislature's decision was overturned. The conclusion demands that abortions will be federally funded. Bush's first week in office, however, seems to suggest that many of these laws may be reexamined.
One future area of contention for the Bush administration will include not only the existing abortion laws but also the subject of "feticide." Modern feticide law differs from abortion-related legislation in that the question of woman's choice is not in play.
Feticide deals with an abortion or killing of a fetus by a third party. The difference between feticide and abortion, however, is beginning to blur. If a mother introduces crack-cocaine into her system while pregnant, for example, in hopes of damaging or killing the fetus, current law designates this as feticide. More and more, feticide and abortion (whether voluntary or involuntary) are beginning to overlap in the area of legislation. And many say that more distinct parameters need to be established soon.
