Abortion Prevented, Delayed, and De-funded in Three American Communities

By Laura Antkowiak, NRL Research Assistant

In 1995, commenting on the trouble it was having finding property for an abortion clinic in Iowa's Quad Cities, a Planned Parenthood executive told the Rock Island Argus that Planned Parenthood has eventually opened a clinic in every area it targets. Planned Parenthood makes no secret of its intention "to preserve--and expand--access to abortion," as it states in its most recent annual report.
Despite Planned Parenthood's deep pockets and heavy public relations, pro-life citizens in recent years have gained some momentum by working at community-level opposition to abortion. The following are three inspiring stories from Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Missouri.

LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA
The latest turn of events in Lancaster's nearly two-year-old effort to keep abortion out of the county has given pro-life citizens the upper hand in a legal battle to keep the local Planned Parenthood clinic from offering abortion. This victory is the product of resistance began in September 1998 when Planned Parenthood of the Susquehanna Valley announced that it would begin performing abortions at its Lime Street clinic.

Planned Parenthood's announcement sparked the creation of a group of concerned community members who formed and incorporated Lancaster United for Life (LUFL). Over 30,000 people have signed LUFL's petition opposing having abortions performed at the clinic.

Initially, however, in April 1999 the Lancaster Zoning Hearing Board agreed with Planned Parenthood that abortion was a "natural expansion" of the clinic's offerings. But on February 11, 2000, Lancaster County Judge Paul K. Allison ruled that local zoning laws did not permit surgical procedures on the clinic property. Local pro-lifers have been magnificent. For example, when the city hesitated to commit to a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood, the generosity of Lancaster's citizens enabled LUFL to hire an attorney to pursue the zoning litigation.

Keys to its success? For one thing the group mobilized the Lancaster community, ensuring that the pro-life message was visible in the media, in the downtown square, at fall farm shows, and on thousands of car bumpers. Several well-attended gatherings have included a January 22 Walk for Life, public lectures, a ministers' evening, and multiple prayer vigils.

For another, the pro-life cause also benefited from the strong support of Lancaster's medical community. Sixty-six local physicians signed a full-page newspaper ad declaring, "Abortion is bad medicine."

Local hospitals also responded when Planned Parenthood attempted to secure a required permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Health. One of the requirements that the department places on abortion facilities is that they must hold a "transfer agreement" with a hospital within 30 minutes' driving distance for the treatment of women suffering complications from abortion. Each local hospital then canceled or refused to renew its transfer agreement with Planned Parenthood after hearing from pro-life community members.

Planned Parenthood, of course, has not given up. But as Planned Parenthood looks for ways around this requirement, the Department of Health has declined to make any certification decision until the zoning case is settled. Planned Parenthood has appealed the county court's zoning decision to the state Commonwealth Court. No date has been set for a hearing.

QUAD CITIES, IOWA
On its web site, Planned Parenthood describes its lengthy battle with Lancaster as similar to the resistance it encountered in trying to build an abortion clinic in the Quad Cities area of Iowa. Even though pro-lifers lost in court in 1998, their involvement delayed construction of the abortion facilities in Bettendorf (which is near Davenport) from the time of Planned Parenthood's announcement in early 1995.

As is its habit, Planned Parenthood claimed to be "desperately needed in Scott County, where teen pregnancy is the highest in the state." Disagreeing that a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic was a "solution," pro-life citizens in the Quad Cities showed up by the thousands at prayer vigils at the proposed abortion clinic site.

They also inundated local officials' offices with pro-life encouragement and showed up in strong numbers at the Bettendorf City Council meeting on the night it voted on the clinic. Supportive municipal officials responded.

Backed by data provided by a group of pro-life realtors showing that abortion clinics lower the property value of surrounding properties, the city twice denied PlannedParenthood permission to build on the proposed site. The property had been zoned as a planned unit development district.
Another important factor in delaying abortion "services" in the Quad Cities was the "certificate of need" that the Iowa Department of Public Health required of health organizations that were new to the area or undergoing changes. Designed to hold down medical costs, this provision kept the abortion facility on the drawing board until the law was eventually defeated in court.

In February 1998, U.S. District Judge Charles Wolle prohibited Bettendorf from enforcing its zoning laws on the clinic. Judge Wolle rezoned the clinic's property to allow abortion, clearing the way for clinic construction.

However, the latest update is more hopeful. Quad City Right to Life reports that the clinic is still not offering abortions.

Moreover, last year, the Life and Family Educational Trust, which had led the opposition to the clinic, bought the property across the street from the Planned Parenthood facility. This group is embarking on a $1.1 million capital campaign in the hopes of opening a free medical clinic for pregnant women, offering such services as ultrasound and prenatal care.

The intense grassroots opposition in the Quad Cities has not only galvanized pro-lifers, it has also saved mothers and their unborn children from abortion for five years--and counting.

STATE OF MISSOURI
For years pro-life lawmakers in Missouri have fought to prohibit family planning funds from going to any organization that performs or promotes abortion as a method of family planning. Budgets containing such restrictions were passed in 1996 and 1997, but were struck down in federal court when challenged by Missouri's Planned Parenthood affiliates.

In 1998, however, the legislature was able to compel Missouri's pro-abortion Attorney General to hire a special counsel to defend the legislation. When U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan, Jr., again ruled for Planned Parenthood, special counsel Jordan Cherrick appealed the decision to the federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. This court's subsequent February 1999 ruling upheld the Missouri statute, holding that Planned Parenthood programs could only continue to receive state funding as long as they had complete separation from the provision of abortion services.

Although Planned Parenthood then closed its abortion clinic in Columbia, home of the University of Missouri, other local offices violated this requirement of strict separation. Unfortunately, the state health department looked the other way.

More determined than ever, in June 1999, the Missouri legislature passed a budget that closed every possible loophole. The measure specifically prohibited the disbursement of family planning funds to any organization performing abortions, referring for abortions, having a similar name to an organization providing abortions, or sharing personnel, salaries, expenses, telephones, waiting rooms, office supplies, or any other facilities, equipment, or supplies with a group doing abortions. Since the restriction was tied into the health department budget, it was reluctantly signed by pro-abortion Gov. Mel Carnahan.

Predictably, as soon as the budget was passed, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging the budget language. A complicated series of challenges then took place in both state and federal courts.

Special counsel Cherrick sued Planned Parenthood of St. Louis and Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, two of Planned Parenthood's largest affiliates in Missouri, later adding the state health department. Cherrick charged that despite the clear language of the law, the state health department continued funding Planned Parenthood.

Last November Judge Byron Kinder upheld Cherrick's position. Kinder listed 13 specific ways in which Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid- Missouri engaged in "sharing" with "affiliated abortion providers" that rendered them ineligible to receive family planning funds under state law. The judge barred Planned Parenthood from receiving any state family planning funds and ordered it to return the money it had already been given, plus interest.

The judge also directed Planned Parenthood to pay Missouri's legal fees. [Further detail on this case can be seen in the December 1999 issue of NRL News.]

This year, Planned Parenthood has again sued the state in District Court, but because of the 1999 8th Circuit decision, the challenge is expected to fail.

Several important themes run through these stories. In all three examples, pro-lifers established a visible, persistent, legal, and peaceful presence at municipal meetings, in the media, and even in the courts. They forged amicable relations with elected officials.

They also utilized the talents of many professionals in their communities and familiarized themselves with municipal and state law, thoughtfully presenting their arguments. Such efforts achieved three important results: the prevention, delay, and de-funding of abortion. Whether these victories hold up over the long run, the communities featured here effectively questioned Planned Parenthood's rhetoric of "trust" and "compassion for the vulnerable." The threat of an abortion clinic inspired a more energetic pro- life outreach to women with crisis pregnancies.

Most important, every day that abortions were not performed, babies survived.