In commemoration of City Weekly's 40th anniversary, we are digging into our archives to celebrate. Each week, we FLASHBACK to a story or column from our past in honor of four decades of local alt-journalism. Whether the names and issues are familiar or new, we are grateful to have this unique newspaper to contain them all.
Title: Freedom Fighters
Author: Anitra Lynn
Date: April 16, 1991
"I'm scared. What if something goes wrong with the pill? If I can't get an abortion, then what? Should I keep my legs crossed the rest of my life? Even if I were married, what if I already had two or three kids? They don't want me to get an abortion; does that mean they are going to help me feed, clothe, and care for the baby, too?"
Joan (not her real name) has some very real concerns and her fear is legitimate. With the passing of Utah's anti-abortion law, she would not be able to obtain an abortion unless her life were in danger, or the pregnancy would present grave damage to her health or if there were fetal defects. Even if she was the victim of rape or incest, she would have a 20-week grace period to obtain an abortion but only if the crime had been reported to the police.
According to information gathered by the Bureau of Vital Records & Health Statistics, only 1 percent of the 4,149 abortions performed in Utah in 1988—less than 50—were for life endangerment, fetal malformation, rape or incest. Of the 4,149 abortions, 23 percent were sought due to contraceptive failure. Nationwide, the estimate is 50 percent.
Contraceptives reduce but do not eliminate the need for abortion as part of a comprehensive family planning system: 7 out of 10 women using a 95 percent effective birth control method would still face a painful decision in their lifetimes to achieve a two-child family.
The information from the Bureau of Vital Records also reveals that fully 84 percent of the women seeking abortions in Utah were not married (never married, widowed, separated or divorced), most between the ages of 15 and 34. Half of these women already had one or more children. Only 24 percent had any education beyond high school, which may put them in low-paying jobs with little or no benefits. In effect, this legislation forces women to have children that they cannot support.
Betty Johnson, the Constituent Services Specialist for Social Services, says that, "Women on welfare don't even have a choice—Medicaid doesn't pay for abortions—these women do not possess the funds to get an abortion whether or not it is legal." Those women are already strapped financially, as a two-person grant (for mother and child) is only a meager $323.00/month, while the cost for an abortion is around three hundred dollars.
In the Friends Journal, a monthly Quaker publication, Laurie Eastman wrote, "How can you, if you have never been in my position, or (in the case of men) if you never can be in my position, judge my reactions [to another pregnancy]? In the name of God/Goddess, do not dismiss us as selfish if we cannot face the burden and responsibility of giving and maintaining life."
Interestingly, there is little push among opponents of abortions to provide adequate prenatal care, maternal and infant health care, day-care services or increased access to contraceptives among groups most at risk of unwanted pregnancy. Shouldn't we invest the anti-abortion law money in programs to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Why should we squander our tax dollars attempting to stop abortions when this will only aggravate the problem?
Mary Carlson, Director of Community Services for Planned Parenthood says, "People should be given choices. People need timely and accurate information so that they can make an informed decision." Mary also said that the Utah County Health Department will not provide family planning information to married couples, nor does the State of Utah support information centers such as Planned Parenthood.
The Utah legislature seems to believe that this law will stop abortions, but criminal laws will not eliminate abortion—history has proven that can only make them less safe and more costly. In Romania, with a population of 23 million, 1.2 million clandestine abortions are performed each year, many resulting in the death of the mother. In the United States, with 11 times more people, only 1.6 million abortions were performed and due to advanced procedures, very few had any complications.
If a woman has an illegal abortion in Utah, a 1983 criminal homicide amendment could allow her—if she even survives the procedure—to be brought up on murder charges. In a special session of the Legislature called by Norm Bangerter, lawmakers will be asked to repeal this amendment on April 17, 1991. But to what end? If the anti-abortion law goes into effect, the number of illegal abortions will rise, but the women seeking them will no longer be held accountable for murder.
Lawmakers and Bangerter have denied this, saying the law was intended to provide for a third-degree felony charge against a person performing an illegal abortion, not against the woman.
Steven M. Rossi, in a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune Public Forum (April 19, 1991), stated that there was, "a total lack of thought that went into ramming this legislation into law. If the legislators could overlook the possibility of a woman being executed for practicing a right she used to have, what other ramifications of this law have they either missed or ignored?" Good question!
Attorneys representing Utah and the American Civil Liberties Union agreed on April 8, 1991 to suspend the new anti-abortion law until the issue is litigated in the courts. In this meeting, they also agreed to suspend portions of Utah's current abortion statutes, including fetal experimentation, requirements that husbands be notified when wives seek abortions and medical procedures to save a woman's life must favor the fetus after six months of pregnancy.
With all of this change and constant shifting, one may well wonder what the abortion debate is really about. Abortion rights activist and medical doctor Warren Hern writes in Births and Power: Social Change and the Politics of Reproduction (Westview Press, Boulder, 1990) "it is a struggle over who runs our society . . . self-determination . . . individual choice, personal freedom and responsibility."
In Utah, white males over 30 control our society—and they aren't concerned with the cost. Bud Scruggs, Governor Bangerter's chief of staff, said the cost of defending the state law will probably be less than the estimated 1 million, adding, "sometimes principles have price tags." But whose principles? And why should we as taxpayers pick up the bill to defend their principles? And who will be defending those principles in a court of law?
Utah Attorney General Paul Van Dam has decided to look for outside counsel because his office has neither the funding nor manpower to defend the legislation that bans most abortions. Lack of funding caused his office to find a suitable outside firm; and the Salt Lake City law firm of Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough has been retained—at no charge—to defend the constitutional challenge of the new anti-abortion law. Miles Holman will act as lead counsel, and former Governor Calvin Rampton will act in a supervisory capacity. Both men are offering their services at a bargain price: $220.00/hour to Rampton and $150.00/hour to Holman. Some bargain!
Also, BYU President Rex Lee "has agreed to be available as a consultant on matters of appellate strategy in the future, when and if it becomes appropriate," and Richard Wilkins, a BYU professor, has agreed to work on the case as an "expert legal consultant" for $50.00/hour.
Mr. Wilkins' name may be familiar if you remember the proposed National Right to Life drafted legislation in Utah and Idaho last year. But even Mr. Wilkins is not so sure about the constitutionality of the law. He thinks including a "time-based approach," a set time period where a woman would be able to choose to have an abortion for any reason, would make the law more appealing to the Supreme Court. But this idea has not been placed on the agenda set by Bangerter.
The time-based idea is interesting; no time frame was given, but it would presumably be required to take place before "quickening" or when the fetus becomes active, usually about the 18th week. Of the 4,149 abortions performed in Utah in 1988, 99% were performed before this stage.
So, what is the net effect of all this expenditure and bad publicity? A Bangerter Bill that even the State's hired guns feel may not pass constitutional muster, or perhaps an amended bill with a "time-based" clause that will produce no net reductions in abortions. Therefore, what's the point?
Until the law is hashed out in a U.S. Supreme Court, Joan, and thousands more like her wait for an answer. But many women aren't waiting—NOW, the National Organization for Women, announced April 9 that it will launch a nationwide boycott of Utah. Rebecca Elliott, executive coordinator of NOW's Utah Chapter said, "Other feminist groups in the United States and Europe will be asked to boycott Utah. The abortion legislation is perceived by the rest of the nation as anti-woman and extreme."
Latest in City Weekly REWIND
