For years anti-choice terrorists in the United States
have attacked abortion clinics with the government openly aiding
their campaigns against women's right to choose. However, in the
last few months, some Supreme Court decisions and national
legislation appear to have pushed the government to stop the
right-wing blockades of clinics and the harassment of doctors.
DIANNE FEELEY and CLAUDETTE BEGIN of the East Bay National
Organisation of Women's Reproductive Rights Task Force describe
the recent history of the pro-choice struggle to keep clinics
open and argue that if access is to be widened, the women's
movement will have to keep the pro-choice campaign on the boil.
The anti-abortionist high-water mark came in 1992, when 1107 acts
of serious violence (bombing, arson, invasion, vandalism,
chemical contamination) were unleashed against community-based
clinics.
According to the National Abortion Federation, in 1993 there were
66 clinic blockades, 113 acts of vandalism and 188 cases of
clinic doctors or staff being stalked. Over 1200 protesters were
arrested. Virtually every time the right wing targeted a clinic,
people came out in defence of a woman's right to choose. Two
national demonstrations in the late 1980s each brought more than
a million people to Washington, DC.
The March 10, 1993 killing of Dr David Gunn, in front of a
Pensacola, Florida clinic, dramatically revealed the besieged
situation. Spontaneous pro-choice demonstrations were immediately
organised throughout the country. Supporters of women's rights
pointed out that the murder of Dr Gunn was not an isolated
incident but formed part of a larger campaign and they demanded
legal protection. Lobbying by the pro-choice forces intensified.
"Bubble" laws and buffer zones
Shortly before the Gunn killing the Supreme Court ruled, by a
six-to-three vote, that courts cannot use federal civil rights
laws to prevent the blocking of clinics where abortions are
performed. As a result of the Supreme Court's adverse ruling and
the Gunn murder, Congress was under pressure to introduce
legislation making it a federal crime to block the entrance to a
clinic.
As clinics provide more than two-thirds of all US abortions,
blocking the clinic doors and harassing clinic staff has been an
important aspect of the anti-abortion terrorists' strategy.
One demand that the women's movement and pro-choice organisations
raised, and won in some areas, was for ordinances to create a
"bubble" of protection around women entering the clinic.
If the woman does not indicate that she wishes to talk with
Operation Rescue's sidewalk "counsellors", they must
refrain from entering a specified space (between eight feet and
twelve yards) to confront her.
The Supreme Court ruled this June on a Florida appeal, declaring
bubble laws legitimate, while setting limits to the size of the
protective buffer zones around clinics and doctor's homes (for
example, across the street is okay, but not several blocks).
Earlier, on May 9, a Texas jury ordered Operation Rescue and
Rescue America National as well as two of their leaders to pay
over $1 million in punitive damages to a Planned Parenthood
clinic that had been disrupted during the 1992 Republican
National Convention in Houston. The jury found that the
protesters conspired to interfere with the clinic's operations.
They awarded the clinic over $200,000 in damages to cover the
costs of escorts and heightened security measures.
However, it is unlikely that the anti-abortion organisations or
their leaders will pay the amounts awarded. They have been busily
transferring their funds.
FACE Act
Last spring the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE)
passed the House of Representatives (241-174) and the Senate
(69-30), and was signed into law by President Clinton. The bill
imposes a prison term of up to 18 months and fines as high as
$25,000 for blockading clinics, damaging clinic property or
harassing clinic patients and staff. It specifically exempts
picketing, chanting and passing out leaflets.
The legislation attempts to draw the line between protest and
harassment. Both civil liberties organisations and grassroots
groups helped to refine the legislation. While there is not total
agreement, the debate over how to protect the rights of
demonstrators has resulted in more thought-out laws.
Of course, various right-wing politicians have attempted to wrap
themselves in the mantle of civil rights, calling the FACE
legislation a bill that would outlaw sit-ins and other
non-violent tactics of the civil rights and Vietnam war era.
The FACE law has already been challenged by six members of the
Missionaries to the Preborn, who blocked the entrance of a
Milwaukee clinic with two station wagons. They go to trial in
August. Four members of Operation Rescue have also been arrested
in Melbourne, Florida under a local injunction that keeps
protesters at least 12 yards from a clinic and establishes a
100-yard buffer zone in which demonstrators cannot confront
clinic visitors "unless such person indicates a desire to
communicate".
The Supreme Court ruled earlier on NOW's suit demanding
protection of clinics through the application of federal
racketeering laws (RICO). The court held that prosecutors need
not demonstrate a financial motive in applying the laws to the
leaders of blockades. They then ordered a retrial of the case in
a lower court.
This decision remains more controversial within the movement,
because it involves proving a conspiracy. Many oppose the
application of RICO to the blockades issue, arguing that the
court was only too ready to expand the definition of what
constitutes conspiracy by protesters, in order to more easily
prosecute progressive protesters in the future.
When a conspiracy is proven, treble damages are awarded. Yet the
reality is that RICO suits are few and far between because it is
so difficult to establish sufficient proof. Consequently, the
FACE legislation and the local "bubble" ordinances will
be most used to deter the right wing.
Blockades diminishing
Right-wing blockades of abortion clinics are on a downward trend.
The significant mobilisations of the women's movement since 1989
have had a major impact directly and indirectly. The issue of
choice was an important factor in the changing of the guard from
the Reagan/Bush administration.
While President Clinton and most of the Democrats certainly do
not support the right of all women to control their own
reproductive lives, they do support the right of limited access
to abortion for women who can scrape up the money. Almost every
organised part of the women's movement has been drawn into the
fight to keep the clinics open. The resulting change in political
climate has been devastating for the "street action"
anti-abortionists.
In the first four months of this year, right-wing activity
outside clinics declined significantly. There have been a total
of only 16 blockades, 108 arrests, 24 acts of vandalism and four
cases of clinic doctors or staff being stalked. The breadth and
size of last year's successful pro-choice counter protests served
to both demoralise and further isolate the anti-choice
terrorists. The threat of arrest under RICO, FACE and/or the
bubble ordinances is proving to deter recruits.
Access the key issue
However, access to abortion is blocked not just by the radical
right standing at the clinic door. Eighty-four percent of all US
counties have no abortion providers; the number of clinics
dropped 18% between 1982-92 and fewer doctors are being trained
in abortion techniques during medical school.
Thirty-five states have some form of parental consent
legislation. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Mississippi have recently
passed legislation requiring a woman to wait 24-hours between the
time she applies for an abortion and the procedure. This
particularly penalises women who must travel in order to obtain
an abortion.
Few clinics perform second trimester abortions. For poor women on
Medicaid and Medicare, only in cases of rape and incest are their
abortions covered. Some private insurance specifically excludes
abortion in its coverage. Even the much debated Clinton Health
Plan might also exclude it.
The attacks on legal abortion since 1973 follow a pattern —
they go after the most vulnerable women: teenagers, poor women,
rural women, women in prison, women of colour. Study after study
reveals that the barriers to abortion prevent a full 20% of those
who want abortions from obtaining them. Access remains the key
issue.