|
CounterPunch
February
10, 2003
New Phase in the War on Women's
Rights
Which Side are
You On?
by SHARON SMITH
George W. Bush's warm greeting to the throngs
of anti-abortion protesters massed in Washington, D.C., on January
22--the 30th anniversary of legal abortion in the U.S.--signaled
the escalation of a war on women's rights that began on his first
day in office.
As Bush's first presidential act in 2001,
he launched a global assault on abortion rights by reimposing
the Reagan-era "gag" rule--overturned by Bill Clinton--that
bars U.S. funds to any family planning agency that even mentions
abortion during counseling, even if it uses its own money to
do so.
Last year, the Bush administration withdrew
U.S. support for the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And last July,
Bush blocked $34 million in U.S. funding--previously approved
by Congress--for the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF), an
agency that does not offer abortion, but provides maternity health
services to poor women without access to hospitals. The UNPF
provides emergency birthing kits to Afghan women, who have one
of the highest rates of maternal mortality in the world--the
very women, in fact, that Bush claimed to be "liberating"
last year.
Poor women suffer inside the U.S. as
well. Most states deny Medicaid payments for most abortions for
poor women, even when they have cancer or diabetes.
Beneath Bush's rhetoric about compassionate
conservatism, he is a raving right-winger, eager to please his
constituents in the Christian Right. Bush plans to sign into
law new restrictions on abortion in the coming months--starting
with a ban on late-term abortions already passed by the House
and a ban on "transporting a minor across state lines"
to obtain an abortion. Bush has made no secret of the fact that
his real goal is overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme
Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S.
But the administration faces a serious
obstacle in doing so--a consistent majority of Americans want
abortion to remain legal. This isn't surprising, since one-third
of all women in the U.S. will have an abortion before the age
of 45.
What is lacking, however, is a movement
that can galvanize the pro-choice majority into a fighting force
to defend abortion rights. The existing pro-choice organizations,
like the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
(NARAL), long ago abandoned this focus. In fact, NARAL has already
launched a multimillion-dollar campaign to elect a pro-choice
president in 2004--and changed its name to NARAL Pro-Choice America
to underscore this emphasis.
When thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators
rallied in Washington on January 22, NARAL organizers were too
busy to organize a pro-choice rally. They were holding an expensive
dinner for Democratic presidential hopefuls instead.
That same week, the New York Times carried
an op-ed article co-authored by a pro- and anti-abortion activist,
titled "The Right to Agree." The authors argued that
those on both sides of the abortion issue should abandon "old"
and "tired" animosities and work together on issues
of agreement, such as promoting abstinence. Yet abstinence programs
are part and parcel of the Christian Right agenda, aimed at turning
back the clock on women's rights.
The Washington Post recently documented
the sort of "morality" promoted by one abstinence "educator"
in Lubbock, Texas: "Will this condom protect your reputation?"
a middle-aged man warned an auditorium of eighth-graders. "You'll
still be known as a slut." The pro-choice movement should
be fighting against everything the Christian Right stands for--not
desperately seeking points of agreement to try to win votes for
Democrats.
Mass protest was part of a movement for
women's liberation that won legal abortion in 1973. At the time,
another raving right-winger--Richard Nixon--occupied the White
House, and the Supreme Court was packed with conservative appointees.
Far from "old" and "tired," a clear and confident
pro-choice movement is exactly what is needed.
Today's Features
Linda Heard
Powell
at the UN: Spiel, Stunts and Special Effects
Anthony Gancarski
Peggy
Noonan, Space Case
The Columbia and the Manufacture of Tragedy
Robert Fisk
You Wanted
to Believe Him: Powell Does Beckett
Robert Jensen
Powell
at the UN:
Smoking Guns and Big Guns
William Hughes
Colin
Powell's Big Flop
Ali Abunimah
Dissecting Powell's Speech:
Hearsay and Old Allegations
Phyllis Bennis
Powell vs. Blix
The Case for War Remains Unmade
Rahul Mahajan
Responding
to Colin Powell
Is This All You've Got?
Paul de Rooij
Where Are the Incubators, Gen. Powell?
Website of the Day
Iraq:
the War Game
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|