Reproductive Freedom

 

This issue continues to be at the forefront of the right-wing agenda despite years of losses at the ballot box on anti-choice ballot measures. The 2008 election was no different; reproductive freedom and women's right to choose were protected by voters in three states: California, Colorado, and South Dakota.

Measures to restrict reproductive freedom are traditionally very controversial but are often an unsuccessful strategy for anti-choice forces. Voters have rejected ballot initiative attempts to weaken a woman's right to choose her health care decisions nearly 90 percent of the time over the past two decades. Since 1972, 33 initiatives concerning women's reproductive health have appeared on ballots and only three anti-choice initiatives have passed.

This year, there were anti-choice ballot initiatives in three states: California, Colorado, and South Dakota.  Despite significant attempts to qualify anti-choice initiatives in Georgia, Montana, Missouri, and Oregon, efforts to make the ballot failed in these states.

California

California's parental notification initiative had failed in two previous attempts (2006 and 2005) and again was rejected by voter's 52%-48%.

Opponents of the California initiative (Proposition 4), including the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association, and the California Academy of Family Physicians, campaigned against the initiative because it would have put young women at risk-delaying access to medical care, counseling, and even by taking matters into their own hands by opting for back alley abortions or worse.

Supporters argued ineffectively that the initiative, entitled the Child and Teen Safety and Stop Predators Act, included a "judicial bypass" provision whereby a young woman who doesn't want to talk to her parents because she is from an abusive or troubled home could go through the court system to a judge. However, as opponents pointed out, a young woman should not be forced to navigate a crowded system when she needs a counselor, not a judge. Opponents also argued that no law can or should mandate family communication and that government interference in private family decisions is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. California voters agreed.

Both the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle editorialized against Proposition 4. The Times wrote, "In fact, under the guise of protecting underage girls, this proposal really is just the latest attempt to impose any obstacle in the exercise of reproductive freedom. This represents the third try in recent years to pass such a measure. California should reject it again." The Chronicle wrote that, "More than a decade ago, the California Supreme Court clearly affirmed that a young woman's right to an abortion was protected by the state constitution's strong privacy rights. Proposition 4 represents yet another attempt to undermine that right. The practical effect of this measure would be to put many young women at risk by delaying abortion procedures, and thus making them more medically complicated."

Colorado

In Colorado, right-wing activists put forward a "Definition of Person" initiative (Amendment 48) that divided conservatives. Established anti-choice groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and Focus on the Family did not actively support the initiative because of strategic differences. They believed that if the initiative passed, it would be challenged in the courts and that it could provide a losing test case in their bid to overturn Roe v. Wade.

This rewrite of the state constitution had sought to overturn Roe v Wade by redefining "personhood" as the moment of fertilization, giving legal rights to embryos. The initiative was rejected strongly by 73% of voters.

No such law currently exists in any state. In Montana this year, anti-choice activists failed to gain enough support to place an abortion ban. A supporter of the measure in Montana said that women could be investigated over how they might have caused their miscarriages and the Montana Catholic Conference came out in opposition to the effort.

The Colorado initiative could have led to a ban on several of the most medically safe forms of birth control and could have banned or restricted common fertility treatments, such as in vitro fertilization.

A broad-based coalition called Protect Families, Protect Choice successfully opposed Amendment 48. The coalition advocated against the measure by highlighting the fact that 48 would impact laws ranging from when property rights are granted, to inheritance rights, to who can file a lawsuit; that it would ban abortion-even for victims of rape and incest or when a woman's life is at risk; that it could outlaw emergency contraception, the birth control pill, and other methods of birth control; and that a woman with cancer could be refused life-saving medical treatment.

South Dakota

The South Dakota initiative (Measure 11) was rejected by voter's 55%-45% after voters resoundingly rejected a similar ban in 2006.

Two years ago the South Dakota legislature passed and Governor Mike Rounds (R) signed a bill that banned abortions without any exception for rape, incest and when the health of the mother was at risk. Citizens repealed the bill by passing a ballot initiative protecting women's health (56%-44%).

South Dakota's regulations on abortion are already the most burdensome in the country. They include a 24-hour waiting period, state mandated counseling and if a patient is a minor a parent or guardian of the patient must be notified first. The doctor must offer the women an opportunity to view a sonogram, and then must record any responses in her permanent medical record. In addition, doctors are required to deliver to women a government dictated script designed to intimidate them and discourage their decisions. The language includes statements of fact that are contrary to all available medical research.

This year, despite the fact that South Dakota has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country, anti-choice activists were back at it again.  This time they included what they claimed were exceptions for mothers' health, rape, and incest; however the exemptions for rape and incest would have required the victim to notify law enforcement authorities and the exception for a women's health would have required extensive documentation from doctors who would risk felony charges and up to 10 years in prison if they believed terminating a pregnancy was best for the patient.

Republican Attorney General, Larry Long had said that the initiative could have been, "declared to be in violation of the United States Constitution" as the law protecting  women's reproductive freedom has essentially been settled since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. In fact, that was the goal of supporters as they had hoped to use the initiative's passage as a means to force the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Opposition to the initiative was led by a citizen coalition called South Dakota Healthy Families. Opponents argued convincingly that the abortion ban would allow politicians to interfere in the most difficult, personal decision that women and families make. They also made the point that Measure 11's vagueness would recklessly endanger women's health. By threatening doctors with a felony and jail time, the law would have had a chilling effect on a doctor's ability to exercise proper medical judgment and protect the health of his or her patients.

Had these initiatives in California, Colorado and South Dakota passed, they would have allowed extreme government intrusion into the personal and private medical decisions of women and their families. What their defeat shows is that a majority of voters continue to support reproductive freedom and oppose attempts to attack women's right to choose and have government make health care decisions for women and their families.