National NOW Times >> Summer 2006  >> Article

War Against Reproductive Rights Surges Through States

by Campbell Roth, Publications Coordinator

Reproductive rights activists gathered on March 9, 2006, at the U.S. Supreme Court to protest South Dakota legislation banning abortion. The law, scheduled to go into effect on July 1, is expected to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The battle we predicted would follow the confirmations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito arrived shortly after Alito's confirmation when, on March 6, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a law with the specific intent of challenging and overturning Roe v. Wade and putting at risk the lives and freedom of women across the country.

Passed by the state legislature in late February and scheduled to go into effect July 1, the law bans all abortions with only an unusually narrow exception to "prevent the death" of the pregnant woman, which presumably requires that death be imminent.

"To the rest of the women in his state—including survivors of rape or incest, and women whose health or fertility are at risk—Rounds sent the message that 'government knows best' when it comes to family formation decisions," said National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy.

Women's rights advocates sprang into action right away. Oglala Sioux President Cecelia Fire Thunder, who will speak at the NOW National Conference in July, said she plans to open a women's health clinic on her reservation in South Dakota, which is not under the jurisdiction of the state's abortion laws.

"Ultimately, this is a much bigger issue than just abortion. The women of America should be outraged that policies and decisions about their bodies are being made by male politicians and clergy. It's time for women to reclaim their bodies," Fire Thunder said.

Because the law violates a woman's right to privacy, as established in Roe v. Wade, South Dakota advocates are expected to challenge the ban in court before it takes effect. The ban will likely not take effect until a final decision is reached—probably by the Supreme Court.

Virtually in concert, a number of other states began to introduce their own bans. In Mississippi, similar legislation died in the legislature partly due to the efforts of NOW activists in the state. Another Mississippi bill, enacted in March, restricts some abortions to hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers, thus imposing costly and unnecessary requirements on the state's lone abortion clinic. To add insult, Operation Save America (formerly Operation Rescue) has announced a siege of the clinic in July — their first siege in many years, made possible when NOW's nationwide injunction against clinic violence was overturned by the Supreme Court earlier this year. (See story on page 12.)

Missouri legislators introduced three bills, each designed to ban abortion in some form. One of these bills would ban abortion without any exception—even the life of the mother.

And the Missouri House of Representatives passed a bill that would bar all state funding for contraception, and would even bar funding for group and institutions that counsel or refer for contraception. "If a local homeless shelter or health clinic tells a woman how to find Planned Parenthood, the shelter would lose its state funds—if this bill becomes law," said Gandy.

The Louisiana Senate passed a bill that prohibits abortion except in cases of life endangerment. That bill was amended April 20, 2006 to make it a "trigger law," which would take effect upon the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

"This is exactly the fight that right-wing zealots have been itching for—a chance to reverse Roe and once again seize control of women's bodies and lives," Gandy said.

In other states, activists used the opportunity to campaign for feminist candidates, petition voters who oppose the anti-choice laws and speak about the dangers of abortion bans. The surest way to end anti-women laws, however, is by voting out the politicians who pass these dangerous laws, Gandy said.

"These politicians want to override the most intimate decisions of women and their families, and only Roe stands in the way. Now the voters will decide whether to override them—by voting in November."