Pro-lifers Successes
In State Legislature Worry NARAL

By Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D.
NRLC Director of State Legislation

The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) once again
has published a gloomy "Who Decides? A State-by-State Review of Abortion and Reproductive Rights," its annual report card on the status of abortion law in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. "NARAL's research shows that, in 1999, more legislation restricting women's reproductive freedom and choice was enacted than in any previous year," said NARAL President Kate Michelman. " Nationally, state legislatures passed 70 anti-choice measures in 1999, up from 62 enacted in 1998, and 14 in 1996."

If that weren't bad enough, from NARAL's perspective, "NARAL's research and tracking reveals that the number of restrictive measures enacted in the states has skyrocketed almost 300 percent over the past five years," Michelman said.

The aggressive push by pro-lifers, she insisted, "has resulted in a nationwide patchwork of laws that make abortion more difficult to obtain through waiting periods, conscience clauses, counseling bans, insurance prohibitions, among others. Women seeking abortions in the year 2000 have fewer rights than their mothers did in 1973, when Roe was decided."

Michelman bemoaned that in 1999, "We witnessed the largest number of anti-choice measures enacted since the NARAL Foundation began tracking state activity in 1991. We also saw several key states step to the forefront of the nationwide assault on the reproductive rights of American women."

NARAL took particular aim at pro-life Texas Gov. George W. Bush, not surprising in that Texas passed a number of pieces of pro- life legislation in 1999 on top of those passed in 1998, and that Mr. Bush is a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

In its lengthy report, released to the press January 20, NARAL highlights four specific areas where it says pro-lifers made the greatest headway during the 1999 legislative session.

First, pro-lifers made strides in preventing state funds or programs from being used for abortion services, counseling, or abortion referrals. A second area is that pro-lifers were able to limit public funds from going to pay for abortions.

According to NARAL, a third category of pro-life success was that they were able to require that abortion facilities meet minimum standards. The fourth and final legislative area of improvement was in passing laws that protect a parent's right to know that his or her minor daughter is considering an abortion prior to the daughter undergoing the abortion.

NARAL lambasted two states in particular, Michigan and Texas, and their respective governors, John Engler and George W. Bush. According to NARAL, the two states tied for passing the most pro- life laws in 1999.

Michigan, a long-time leader in the pro-life movement, passed a partial-birth abortion ban. It also specifically forbade certain state funds from being used to provide legal assistance in any proceeding to procure a non-therapeutic abortion or compel anyone or any institution to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion, contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the individual or institution.

Further, Michigan was successful in stopping state funds from going to provide state employees or their dependents with coverage for abortion services unless necessary to preserve the woman's life (or unless the coverage is required by a civil service or collective bargaining agreement). In addition, the Office of the State Employer is directed to negotiate the elimination of abortion coverage through collective bargaining.

Michigan pro-lifers enjoyed other victories in the fight to prevent the use of tax dollars for abortion.

Finally, still another law requires that "a physician must file a written report with the Department of Public Health regarding each patient who comes under the physician's care and who suffers a physical complication or death that is a primary, secondary, or tertiary result of an abortion," according to NARAL.

NARAL seemed particularly concerned that Texas stepped "to the forefront" this year in passing strong pro-life legislation--all signed into law by pro-life Gov. George W. Bush. It noted that " 93 percent of Texas counties have no abortion provider," and that "Texas lost 15 abortion providers between 1992 and 1996; the number fell from 79 to 64 - - a 19 percent loss."

One of the new Texas laws is a parental notification measure signed into law by Gov. Bush on June 7, 1999. The legislation provides that an unemancipated minor under the age of 18 can not obtain an abortion until at least 48 hours after actual notice has been delivered by the physician, in person or by telephone, to one parent.

The law contained a judicial bypass as required by a number of U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with parental involvement. New Jersey and Florida also passed parental involvement laws this session.

Another pro-life law passed in Texas in 1999 prevents certain " charitable associations" which perform or refer for abortions or provide assistance to ambulatory health care centers that perform or refer for abortions from being eligible for a new property tax exemption. Gov. Bush signed this bill on June 19, 1999. He also signed a bill that regulated abortion facilities that perform 30 or more abortions. Opponents filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

In response to NARAL's report, Joe Kral, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, said, "They are crying, 'The sky is falling! The sky is falling!' Why? Because states are passing laws which stop the use of taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions, requiring abortion facilities to comply with minimum standard regulations, and protecting a parent's right to be notified prior to a daughter's abortion."

Kral added that "these are all reasonable measures which have the support of mainstream America. It illustrates just how extreme our opponents are!"

In the body of the report, NARAL also observes, "The plethora of state anti-choice laws enacted in recent years increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will reconsider legal abortion in the near future. The findings of 'Who Decides?' are particularly significant this year as we prepare to elect the next President of the United States."

This President, the report notes, "will likely nominate at least two, maybe three, Justices to a divided Supreme Court. With three Justices already strongly in favor of reversing Roe v. Wade, an anti-choice President could mean the end of legal abortion and a woman's right to make personal, private decisions."

NARAL's press release maintained that as we enter the new millennium, the right to abortion "stands at a crossroads"-- and so it does.

"Down one road lies hope for the future," remarked David N. O 'Steen, Ph.D., NRLC executive director, "Down the other is the abortion business, as usual."

O'Steen added, "We are encouraged that NARAL is discouraged by the wonderful work pro-lifers are doing in the 50 states and we look forward to a future that rejects the culture of death."