In what many pundits identify as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, the South Dakota state legislature passed a comprehensive abortion ban in February. The legislature expects that the current makeup of the Supreme Court will prompt it to return decisions regarding abortion towards individual states' jurisdiction, which would pose a significant setback for pro-choice activists in more conservative areas of the country. Opinion polls show that the American public is generally in favor of existing abortion rights, meaning that the two major political parties will likely adopt more centrist policies in upcoming elections. This week we talk to Peggy Barrett, director of the Women's Center at Tufts, on the current state of women's reproductive rights in America.
Paul Lemaistre: These state legislatures are looking to force the challenge to Roe v. Wade (1973) and utilize a conservative majority of the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. What are your first impressions about this challenge to the landmark case for individual women's rights in this country?
Peggy Barrett: It has become a very interesting situation. I agree that the legislators will exploit what they see as a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But I think that they have misjudged the mood of the country. A lot of people are backing away from these very conservative views, including in some cases the Republican Party, which is not in full support of the South Dakota law. There will probably be a challenge to Roe v. Wade that makes it up to the Supreme Court in the near future. Right now the grassroots activists are deciding not to challenge because they are trying to get the law overturned at the state level and they seem to have a lot of support in the state. I think where the law made some mistakes was saying that a woman's right to health and a woman's right to control her reproduction is not going to be upheld at all. When we think what our basic human rights are, our access to health care is amongst the most important, and our right to control health care choices is also as important. This law is entering into a type of arena wherein people might be forced into opera-tions they wouldn't want. They did have a provision wherein attention could be provided if a woman's life were in danger. [But] who decides what an endangerment for the woman's life is? Health encompasses a lot of different things, and they see it as a big loophole that women can walk through and get abortions. But there are a lot of really abhorrent kinds of things that could happen. For example, in some pregnancies, the fetuses are not viable. In that kind of law, then a woman would have to carry a dying fetus until it actually died by itself. That would amount to weeks of torment and possibilities of infection. At some point her life will become endangered, so again at some point this becomes a medically untenable situation.
PL: The South Dakota legislation makes very vague provisions, if any at all, for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, which have until now always appeared as standard provisions on women's rights legislation.
PB: These are very drastic psychological concerns of carrying to term a fetus that was conceived in either rape or incest. Most incest victims are children, and that would have dire effects on what is effectively a child's body. The loss of focus on women's health, I would say, is the biggest threat. There is instead an increased focus on fetal health. When that happens, then suddenly these two are being put in competition with each other. Once a baby is born, we don't require that the woman put her own health risk at any time for this baby, so why would we require it when it is still a fetus? There is a bodily integrity that we seem to be forgetting about in the urge to protect the fetus. I find that very dangerous. There is absolutely no other situation like this, because it is an absolute dependence of the fetus on the mother. Generally if the mother is sick and not doing well, the fetus is also sick and not doing well. They aren't in competition - the fetus is dependent on the health of the mother. It is the mother's health that I think we should be focusing on.
PL: American public opinion seems to have shifted favorably towards keeping current abortion practices. In July, polls by the Pew Research Center found that only 29 percent of the public thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and nearly 65 percent thought that it shouldn't be changed, preferring instead that some restrictions be enforced, especially parental and spousal notification and mandatory waiting periods.
PB: I think that these numbers show that as adults we expect each other to make these decisions depending on our own systems of beliefs. [The rationale behind the South Dakota law] is saying, "We are going to choose a way of providing healthcare that will be based on only one cultural belief' and not acknowledging that within the United States there is a huge diversity about religious and cultural beliefs." This alienates a lot of groups in favor of a vocal majority. Given the idea of religious freedom in the United States, this is not a viable way of making laws to gain support.
PL: You mentioned earlier the Republicans' efforts to distance themselves from very conservative thinking regarding abortion rights. Considering this and also public opinion surveys putting most Americans as generally accepting of status quo legislation, what role do you expect women's reproductive rights to have in the 2006 midterm and 2008 presidential elections?
PB: It certainly will be in some circles, but whether it will receive the same attention on the national scene is tricky. The Democrats would have to make an issue of these laws, and I don't know if they would feel that they had much to gain. I think that the Republicans were hurt by doing this, and the Democrats might be more conservative and not bring it up, for fear of being seen as too pro-choice. I think the Democrats want to come across as reasonable and make the Republicans look like radicals. The Democrats will move towards the center of the road, especially considering the public opinion surveys you cited. I'm not clear if it will become as big an issue in the next cycle of elections as are the war and the economy. Unless there is a case going up to challenge Roe v. Wade, I don't believe the country feels in much turmoil about it.
PL: What would a female president or serious female presidential candidate in 2008 mean for women's rights?
PB: I think that no matter what happens, having a woman as a role model makes a difference, no matter what her personal politics are. However, the personal politics matter in what they believe is important. When you think of women as different from men, you of course have to say what type of woman you're talking about. What race are they? Which social classes do they belong to, and what is their sexual orientation? Certainly if Hillary Clinton were elected, she would be different from Condoleezza Rice. Clinton is moving towards the center to position herself for this race. She is not at the moment very vocal on issues of welfare or poverty or even health care. Her current positions are more centrist than they used to be, and Rice's are even further right [than] hers. Potential male candidates would probably be very similar.
But that doesn't take away from your question, which is what is going on in the general scheme.They are losing bodily integrity... So that's what this law would force: a woman or her doctors to make this kind of decision. It becomes untenable as well... That's just not something that most people want to live with. But what does that mean? I can't think of what risk that might be - you can't force someone to take that kind of risk with their life. Beyond these physical effects on younger women's bodies and the psychological issues associated with rape and incest for all women, This seems to get lost somewhere here. ... Most people in the US would like choices about reproduction to be made on the basis of cultural traditions of the people involved and raising a potential child.
Eventually these topics will address questions of contraception, because what it will eventually become is an attack on contraception and women's ability to control their own reproduction. It won't include in what in many people's thinking are the barrier methods (condoms and diaphragms), except in very religious cases...Our ability to choose reproduction is a very big area of concern, and people's ability to make choices that address both health and psychological concerns. This goes back to the idea of living your life the way you want to live it.
The one important thing to consider is whether they have a social justice agenda, and that would mean they envision a society where everyone has equal access to decision making issues. They try to limit these issues to economic opportunity and issues of education...The best candidate with the best policies for these kinds of issues might be a man actually.
I think it will have to take more than what is happening so far.
PL: Women at Tufts live in one of the most liberal states in the US, have easy and subsidized access to emergency contraception at Health Services and a nearby Planned Parenthood center in Davis Square. What does living in this liberal bubble that probably isn't representative of the larger American society mean for them after graduation?
PB: It certainly is a bubble. They would be in a shock if they moved into very conservative states or rural areas. When we are talking about a Tufts student who is concerned about these issues in their twenties, they will know how to access these options... I wouldn't worry about these students, but what I would be concerned about is getting access to good healthcare. Where the Tufts student differs from other people is this ready access to healthcare, as well as the knowledge that they have the right to these options.
