by
Dr. Chineze J. Onyejekwe
On the 5th of February 2006, Betty Friedan died on her 85th birthday, in Washington, D.C.
Ms. Friedan was credited with launching the 70’s women’s movement with her 1963 landmark book
The Feminine Mystique, in which she challenged the limitations of women’s roles to wife and mother.
Friedan’s denunciation of stifling stay-at-home motherhood has been associated with a dramatic
change of life for women.
However, another movement was emerging simultaneously with the Women’s Movement – one
founded by two men, Larry Lader and Doctor Bernard Nathanson. Lader and Nathanson were the
co-founders of NARAL, then known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws {now
known as National Abortion Rights Action League.] Larry Lader was concerned with population;
while Doctor Bernard Nathanson had seen a botched abortion, and believed that abortion would be
safer for women if it were legalized.
While Friedan seemed to be uncomfortable with abortion, the emphasis by Bernard Nathanson that it
(abortion) was necessary in achieving equality in the workplace seemed to gain her support, along
with the support of other leaders of the women’s movement. In fact, later editions of Friedan's
landmark book were edited to include an epilogue promoting a “right to choose childbirth or
abortion.”
Abortion, the termination of pregnancy before the fetus has become capable of sustaining an
independent life outside the uterus, has recently been dominating the news media in the United
States. This is especially so, with the state of South Dakota approving an abortion ban.
On February 22, 2006, the South Dakota Senate voted 23-12 on a bill to ban nearly all abortions, even
when a woman conceives as result of rape or incest, except when a pregnant woman’s life is in
danger. Governor Michael Rounds signed the bill into law on the 6th of March. Expected to come
into force in July of this year, this law will make it a felony to perform abortions except in order to
save a pregnant woman’s life. This followed an earlier abortion case brought before the Supreme
Court - Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
The major issue in the Ayotte case was that of a minor’s access to abortion. This New Hampshire
Statute requires that either a parent be notified at least 48 hours before a pregnant minor has an
abortion, or the said minor must petition a court for permission to have an abortion if she is unable or
unwilling to tell her parents (Gloria Feldt, Women’s Enews, 7 December 2005). Gloria Feldt, recent
past President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, pointed out that the Ayotte case
challenges Roe by raising the fundamental question of whether there is respect for a woman’s
personhood and equality under the law.
What then is Roe?
Roe v. Wade is the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling on abortion and privacy rights. A woman
(“Jane Roe” in court documents) who said she was pregnant from rape and wanted an abortion, sued
a Texas district attorney (Henry Wade) to prevent him from enforcing a Texas law banning abortion
except to save the mother’s life. On January 22, 1973, the Court decided this case. This landmark
decision legalized abortion nationwide. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over her
pregnancy during the first trimester, and defined different levels of state interest for the second and
third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling (OYEZ,
November 2005).
Roe v. Wade unleashed on America a new violent norm, such as violent campaigns against abortion
clinics by the anti-choice (pro-life advocates) forces. For example, Joseph Scheidler, through the Pro-
Life Action Network and Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion rights group, was accused of
orchestrating a nationwide criminal campaign against abortion clinics in an effort to drive them out of
business (Allison Stevens, Women’s Enews, 1 December 2005).
Opposition to Roe on the bench also grew, particularly during the time of President Ronald Reagan,
who supported legislative restrictions on abortion. However, while Sandra Day O'Connor (Supreme
Court Judge) was a Reagan appointee, according to Gloria Feldt she was consistently a pivotal fifth
vote to uphold Roe’s protections of women’s rights to choose. Three decades have passed since Roe v.
Wade, yet, further debates surrounding abortion continue.
Religious voices worldwide, and their “choose life” message, emphasize the Incarnation of Jesus Christ
in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the sacredness and dignity of every unborn child. For
these pro-lifers, abortion under any circumstances is murder and must be made illegal. They preach
for perseverance in defending vulnerable human life from abortion, abandonment and
experimentation (ie.: talk of stem-cell research).
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the pro-choice camp stresses that any restrictions on a woman’s
control over her own body is an assault on her personal freedom. Some people ponder what will
happen in cases of rape and incest. Others question whether eliminating access to abortion will
eliminate unwanted pregnancies, or the negative consequences associated with back-alley abortion
such as maiming and death.
With the retirement of Roe supporters William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, and their
replacement by judges appointed by President George H. W. Bush, many predict the demise of Roe.
This prediction is echoed in a recent report by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (2005)
titled: ''The War on Women: A Pernicious Web.'' The report asserts that anti-choice zealots have
imposed oppressive restrictions on abortion, and that banning abortion threatens women’s health.
The death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and the announced departure of Sandra Day O'Connor
heightened this assumed fear of Roe’s demise. The nomination (and subsequent confirmation) to the
Supreme Court of Samuel Alito, an appeals court judge, made matters worse. As Liz Halloran (US
News and World Report, 9 January 2006) observes, Alito’s record regarding abortion issues shows a
conservative bias.
Much emphasis is generally put on the deliberate intervention with pregnancy (that is, an
intervention which is induced), even though abortion can also occur spontaneously. This results in an
increased tendency to equate abortion with reproductive rights. As in, the institutionalization of
women’s right to abortion could be seen as paving the way for women achieving full reproductive
rights. However, as shown in the definition of reproductive rights, agreed upon at the 1994 United
Nations Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt [5 to 13 September]
(Population Action International 2001), the right to abortion alone does not make for full reproductive
rights.
In terms of reproductive health, for example, women bear the largest share of costs, dangers and
burdens (physical, mental, social, and economic). Maternal mortality ratio (a measure of the risk of
death a woman faces every time she becomes pregnant) is a case in point. It is the leading cause of
death for girls between the ages of 15 to 19 in the developing world. These dangerous burdens also
include HIV/AIDS, which constitute the leading cause of death and illness among women between the
ages of 15 and 44, globally.
Lack of access to modern contraceptives was cited as the major factor behind millions of unintended
pregnancies, especially in the developing world. The same applies for the millions of unsafe abortions
worldwide, each year. Many of these unsafe abortions lead to permanent disabilities or death, which
also supports the framing of the legalized abortion issue as one of repressive sanctions against women
in exercising their basic guaranteed freedoms and rights, severely violating the constitutional rights of
a person and discriminating against women.
However, polls show that the termination of pregnancy, especially late term, is always considered to
be an extreme step. According to William Beaman (Reader’s Digest, November 2005, pp. 123-129),
polls show that while a majority of Americans feel that abortion should remain legal, most of them
also object to abortion on demand, especially once the woman is in her third trimester of pregnancy,
unless her life is at risk or the pregnancy resulted from rape, or incest. Beaman further points out that
these Americans are pro-choice, if it’s determined within the first three months of pregnancy that the
child would be born with a life-threatening illness; and they are also pro-choice if the pregnancy
results from rape, or if a woman’s life is endangered.
While the abortion debate often seems to be stalled at the impasse between “women’s rights” versus
“the baby,” the basic needs of women are often ignored, even to the point of not seeking a
comprehensive review of the reasons that drive women to abortion in the first place. For example,
poverty. As described by a human rights perspective, poverty consists of the non-fulfillment of a
person’s human right to access a range of basic resources such as: the right to adequate food, health,
education, decent work, adequate housing, personal security, or equal access to justice and political
rights and freedoms. Consequently, a majority of poor women are not able to have access to
adequate health care, more especially, family planning.
Poverty is resource deprivation, and this encompasses: the inability to satisfy basic needs; lack of
control over resources; lack of education and skills; poor health and malnutrition; lack of shelter; poor
access to water and sanitation; vulnerability to shocks, violence and crime; as well as lack of political
freedom and voice (Amartya Sen 1999). The major challenge for advocates for women and children’s
rights, whether pro-life or pro-choice, is that every day that goes by while the needs of some pregnant
women are unmet is another day marked by thousands of abortions, as well as narrowed access to
quality health care, which often fuels the illegal abortion industry.
The global experience demonstrates that a decrease in abortion rates is achieved, not through violent
repressions against women and medical personnel, but rather through targeted state policies
supporting maternity, children, families, and reproductive rights. Effective regulation of reproductive
behavior of people relies on a wide access to information and family planning services.
Women’s right to choose should not always be thought of in terms of termination of pregnancy. This
choice needs to begin with the remedy of a number of fundamental issues pertaining to women’s
reproductive rights; rights which can aid women in achieving a state of complete physical, mental,
and social well-being. There is a fundamental need for sustained investment in core services such as
health and education, as a way of ensuring long-term development, and women's health, in many
countries.
Acknowledging these facts will aid in understanding the issue of abortion, and hopefully, lead choice
activists toward working together for better outcomes for women and children.
References
Beaman, William “Red State, Blue State. So the Media Says. But Has Our Country Truly Become A
Fractured America?"; Reader’s Digest, November 2005, pp. 123-129.
Feldt, Gloria “ High Court Case Takes Aim at Heart of Roe,”; 7 December 2005.
Available on the Internet at: http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2552
OYEZ “Roe v. Wade.”; 410 U.S. 113 (1973), Docket Number 70-18.
Available on the Internet at: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/334/
Halloran, Liz “Throws Right, Bats Right, OK?”; US News and World Report, 9 January 2006.
Population Action International (2001). Available on the Internet at:
http://www.populationaction.org/resources/publications/worldofdifference/rr2_ICPD.htm
Sen, Amartya (1999) "Development as Freedom.”; New York: Knopf.
Stevens, Allison “Roberts Tips His Hand During High Court Argument,”; 1 December 2005.
Available on the Internet at: http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2544
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (2005) ''The War on Women: A Pernicious Web.''
Available on the Internet at:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/femalesexualhealth/report-
030114-rights.xml
"Women, War, Peace-building and Reconstruction"; International Social Science Journal, 57 (184), 277-283. (2005)
