01.09.2004

Women's rights under attack

While the Republican Party tries to present its moderate face, nobody can be in any doubt as to George W Bush's real agenda. He represents plutocratic, conservative America and the politics of social control. But what of John Kerry? As Anne Mc Shane makes clear, he is on the retreat and now simply markets himself to women as the lesser evil

Among George W Bush’s election pledges are a constitutional ban on gay marriage and a commitment to set up a president’s council, made up of religious leaders and other appointed ‘ethicists’, to monitor and restrict stem cell research. But high on his political agenda is a commitment to overturn existing constitutional rights to abortion. Supported by christian fundamentalists - including the catholic church, which was conducting daily masses at this week’s Republican Party convention - Bush has made it very clear that he is determined to force through an onslaught on women’s rights.
But this is nothing new. Bush has always aimed to halt abortion. He began to whittle away existing rights soon after coming into office in 2000. Significantly he oversaw the passing of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2002. ‘Partial birth abortion’ was originally used to denote a common type of late-term abortion, but it has in fact now become code for all abortions after the first three months of pregnancy. Twenty-three states have implemented the legislation and banned partial birth abortions. What this means in practice is that safe abortion is now severely restricted after three months for almost half of US women. It does not matter that most foetal abnormalities cannot be detected before three months and that many women do not even know they are pregnant until then. Gruesome images are transmitted to the American public by the Republican campaign team and women who have ‘late’ abortions are vilified.

For pro-choice activists who look to the current constitution for protection the situation is dire. The famous decision of the Supreme Court in Roe versus Wade in 1973 established that human life does not begin until birth - therefore there could be no rights under the constitution for the ‘unborn’. It further stated that abortion could not be banned by any state before the first six months of pregnancy, although it could be regulated after three months. Bodies like the National Organization of Women and the Center for Reproductive Rights look back to that judgement as an historic turning point. While it certainly did not establish a woman’s right to choose, it allowed women some rights - at least up to six months of pregnancy. Now things are changing, and changing fast.

A number of legal challenges have been made to the three-month ban - a similar ban was overturned by the Supreme Court in the case of Stenberg versus Carhart in 2000. Other cases are at the present time going through US courts and some temporary injunctions have been won by campaigners. But no challenge has yet found its way to the Supreme Court and Bush is determined that, when it does, it will be safely stuffed with his own supporters. He has made it clear that he will ensure Roe versus Wade is reversed. He has already begun to top up the judiciary with those whose hostility to abortion matches his own and that of his bible-bashing attorney general, John Ashcroft. The nine-member Supreme Court previously decided against bans on abortion on a five-four vote. Bush does not want any such repetition.

But there is also opposition outside of the courtroom. A mass demonstration in support of abortion rights was held in Washington in April. One million, mostly women, turned out, in a protest that even eclipsed the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations. Speakers from the platform held up wire coat hangers - symbolising back-street abortions - and pledged never to return to those days of illegality. With feelings running high, many looked to the Democrats for salvation. Hillary Clinton exhorted the crowd to vote for John Kerry to defend abortion rights. Thousands who had not already registered to vote did so on the day.

Although John Kerry did not attend or send a message of support, he had vowed a couple of days before to defend abortion rights. He had the support of the march organisers and the main women’s rights and pro-choice organisations. The message from the rally was that there was something you could do to stop Bush - simply register and vote for Kerry.

But since April things seemed to have changed for John Kerry. He is a practising catholic and the church has been unhappy, to say the least, about his commitment to defend women’s rights. With catholics making up almost one quarter of the voting public this is important - especially given the open support of some religious leaders for the methodist, George Bush. Prior to the April demonstration Kerry was criticised for stating that he would only nominate Supreme Court judges who were pro-choice - Cardinal Francis Arinze told a Vatican news conference that pro-abortion catholic politicians such as Kerry were “not fit” to receive communion. He was asked if priests should deny communion to politicians who are unambiguously pro-abortion and replied: “Yes … if the person should not receive it, then it should not be given” (Reuters, April 23). Since then many US bishops have effectively stated that he should be excommunicated. He is said not to be a real catholic.

As well as attacks from the church, Kerry has also come under pressure from within his own party. Democrats for Life of America say they have the support of many within the party and a poll carried out in January showed 43% of Democrats opposed to most or all abortions.

By July there was a change in the approach of the Kerry campaign. His speeches began to emphasise “family values” and “American values”. He was at pains to stress that he shared the conservative values of many mid-westerners. In an interview with the Boston Globe he stated: “I don’t like abortion. I believe life begins at conception” (July 18). Although he went on to say that he does not intend to force his views on women and will defend Roe versus Wade, his statements have caused confusion among his pro-choice supporters.

In such a charged political climate his retreat is hardly surprising. Kerry wants to assure conservatives that he is no ‘radical’. He certainly has made it clear that he is not pro-choice in any real sense. In circumstances where the most reactionary sections of the American right are conducting a full-blown ideological offensive and have embedded themselves in the furthest removed, least accountable parts of the US constitutional system of checks and balances against democracy, there will be stiff resistance to overturning the partial birth abortion ban already in operation in many states.

But, despite Kerry’s backsliding, George Bush is clearly the greater danger. Not only is he determined to ban terminations: he also imposed a ban on US international funding to organisations that advertise contraceptives and provide abortion. This ban, known as the ‘global gag’, was originally the brainchild of Ronald Reagan. Reversed by Clinton, it was re-imposed by Bush on his first day in office. This means that organisations in Kenya and many other parts of the world dependent on US hand-outs are prohibited from providing contraceptive advice, condoms or safe abortions. With 19 million dangerous back-street abortions carried out globally every year, Bush has a lot to answer for.

He has also introduced the Unborn Victims of Crime Act - opening the way for those who carry out abortions to be sued on behalf of the ‘unborn’. Many doctors have already suffered physical attack from militant pro-life protestors. The christian right - methodist, baptist, pentecostal, catholic - are operating nasty campaigns that intimidate, threaten and assault women and doctors and attempt, often successfully, to have abortion clinics closed down.

Finally, there is third candidate Ralph Nader, who has not said much on the question. When interviewed, he has consistently refused to take a clear line in defence of abortion rights. Although he has said that it is not a matter that the state should intervene in, he seems unmoved by the prospect of the reversal of established rights. As far as Nader is concerned, it is a non-issue - or at least one he wants to avoid for fear of losing votes or the support of some of his more rightwing supporters.
Hardly surprising then that those who stand against Bush’s ‘pro-family’, rightwing agenda are far more likely to vote Democrat. The thousands who marched in April and demonstrated this week at the Republican convention are still being told that the only choice is Kerry. But he cannot be trusted. Instead the women’s rights organisations that are today appealing for a vote for him, need to look elsewhere - crucially to the answers of socialism and an alliance with the organisations of the working class.

The right is mobilised - we need our own opposition. And the demand must be clear and unambiguous - for a woman’s right to choose.