Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, June 28, 1993 TAG: 9306280048
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CODY LOWE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
\ Sometimes it's hard to believe the two sides are talking about the same legislation.
One says the bill simply writes into federal law the provisions of Supreme Court decisions on abortion from 1973 to 1988. The other says the bill effectively would allow all women - as well as minors - to get an abortion at any stage of pregnancy for almost any reason.
The arguments over the proposed Freedom of Choice Act are sometimes complex, often over subtle legal technicalities, and easily become impassioned.
Take the issue of parental notification.
Most states, but not Virginia, now require that a minor inform a parent, guardian or some other legally designated adult - such as a judge or minister - before she can have an abortion.
Both House and Senate versions of the Freedom of Choice Act allow states to require "that a minor involve a parent, guardian or other responsible adult before terminating a pregnancy."
The way abortion opponent Andrea Sexton reads that, states now requiring a minor to go to a judge to bypass her parents would have to change their laws to allow the involvement of any "responsible adult" chosen by the child herself.
Sexton, spokeswoman for the Roanoke chapter of the Virginia Society for Human Life, fears that adult "could be the abortionist himself," because states "may not restrict" abortions except under the very limited, explicit conditions of the bills.
David Nova, spokesman for Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge, wonders how anyone could read that interpretation into the bill.
"There is no intention by Congress to change all parental consent and notification laws" to conform with some national standard, Nova said.
In his reading, the bills' language allows states to retain laws that require involvement by any of those three categories of persons and wouldn't restrict states from specifying which adults are to be "responsible."
There are numerous examples of the schism between interpretations of the bill, the history of which dates back several years.
Abortion-rights advocates first attempted to write a federal law protecting women's right to abortion in 1989, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that states may impose some restrictions on abortions.
In Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, the court upheld Missouri's law banning abortions in public hospitals and preventing government employees from counseling women about abortions. It also required abortion providers to test any fetus over 20 weeks old to determine if it could live outside the womb.
Bills to establish a Freedom of Choice Act were introduced in 1991 and 1992 but not acted on by either the full House or Senate despite widely held expectations each time that they would be. Expectations are high again this year that Congress will consider the bills before summer is over.
Even at points where they do agree on the effects of the currently proposed law, advocates and opponents usually have opposite views of the desirability of those actions.
Under the act, states would be prohibited from imposing a waiting period between a woman's first visit to a clinic and the time an abortion could be performed. States could not require that a married woman have the permission of her husband to get an abortion.
They could not require physicians to offer women specific kinds of information about fetal development or alternatives to abortion. States could not limit the reasons for which a woman may obtain a legal abortion - prohibiting abortions because of economic considerations or for sex selection, for instance.
Both sides also agree that the bill's language is clear where it says states "may not restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability; or at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."
The language seems to mirror the Supreme Court's attitude in a 1992 Pennsylvania case, in which it ruled states could not impose an "undue burden" by placing "a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."
The concept of viability - the ability to live outside the womb - presents additional ground for disagreement.
Nova considers the imposition of the act's viability test as "a slight improvement" over previous court rulings that broke a pregnancy into thirds and allowed varying degrees of restrictions in each trimester.
Using the viability standard, "each case can be determined individually" by medical professionals, Nova said.
That's exactly what worries Sexton - that an abortion provider who has a vested financial interest in the procedure could determine whether or not the fetus is viable and that states will not be allowed to designate a cutoff point.
Sexton and other abortion opponents say 23 to 24 weeks should be the threshold and that a baby must be considered viable even if survival requires the temporary aid of artificial life support.
Though survival varied greatly from institution to institution, a 1991 study published in Pediatrics magazine showed that babies born prematurely at 24 weeks survived at rates of 10 percent to 57 percent. Another national study found the average survival rate at that age was 34 percent.
Viability "really has little to do with the child, and everything to do with the technology" available at the hospital where it is born, Sexton believes.
She contends the Freedom of Choice Act would allow an abortion provider to decide that a healthy fetus was not able to live unsupported outside the womb at up to 34 weeks - 7 1/2 months - and to proceed with an abortion.
In addition, she believes the exemption allowing abortion even after viability to protect the health of the woman will be interpreted broadly. The Senate committee report on its version of the bill defined "health" as "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient."
Abortion opponents are always arguing that the Freedom of Choice Act would allow "abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy," Nova said. He accused them of describing a scenario in a doctor's office in which a woman "nine months pregnant, says, `I've got a splitting headache. I want an abortion.' "
He contends it is "almost impossible . . . in the state of Virginia" or anywhere else for a woman to obtain an abortion once she begins her 22nd week of pregnancy. "It's just not occurring."
Sexton and other opponents say that because reporting of abortions is voluntary, late-term abortions are grossly undercounted. They believe thousands are performed each year.
Another source of concern for abortion opponents is that the House version of the Freedom of Choice Act does not include a provision for states to decline to pay for the performance of abortions.
Nova said it was "nonsense" to believe states would be forced to fund abortions for poor women or others. "The federal government would never require states to fund a procedure" that Congress itself has repeatedly declined to fund since 1977, he believes.
Sexton, who has a law degree, doesn't find much comfort in such assurances because she considers House Speaker Tom Foley's plan to prohibit debate or amendments on the act to be an "anti-democratic . . . attempt to railroad the bill through Congress."
For Nova, such a maneuver would simply be a legitimate "attempt to use parliamentary procedure" to ensure passage of the bill. "Both sides know how to use" such tactics to their advantage, he said.
The bottom line, Nova said, is that he and other proponents believe the act will have "no effect on Virginia law, . . . federal funding for abortions or other states' laws on parental notification."
"Those who consider this measure extreme also consider Virginia law extreme and the Roe decision extreme," he said.
That is a word Sexton is not afraid to use. "In spite of the language of the bill, it is a legislative mirage. In reality, this is pro-abortion extremism, not compromise."
One of her major concerns, she said, is that she believes the real goal of Freedom of Choice Act is "not to enshrine the Roe decision" but to make abortion a "quasi-moral choice, equal to and maybe better than giving a child life."
Nova says he has "a real sense that society wants to see the end of the battle."
"There are hard-working people on both sides who believe fundamentally they are working for the good, for what is right. Certainly we can agree that there should be more help for those who have been born, more money for prenatal care, for healthy children. If the two groups were to work together, we could be a significant force."
by CNB