If you asked a college-aged woman in 1970 if she was registered tovote, she probably would have responded with, “yes.”
If you probed deeper and asked why, it’s likely she would haverecited a number of ways her vote could transform the lives ofAmerican women.
High on the list of legislative and judicial priorities for theyoung women of that era was legalizing abortion. Today, the vastmajority of Americans, young women in particular, still support the1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized earlyabortion.
But far fewer are using their voting power to support the right tochoose. Why? Because they feel the issue has been settled. Theybelieve the Roe decision ended the debate over legal abortion in theUnited States. In fact, the Supreme Courts’ decision did not codify awoman’s right to choose.
The right to choose is in a precarious state in this country, andthe next president of the United States may very well hold the fateof abortion rights in his hands.
The next president will name as many as three justices to the U.S.Supreme Court, potentially shifting the balance to an anti-abortionmajority. This could result in an overturning of Roe vs. Wade andsend women back to the hands of unscrupulous and untrained illegalabortion providers.
The president will also name judges to district courts, where manymore abortion cases are reviewed. The Administrative Office of U.S.Courts reported that President Clinton has appointed 305 judges,President Bush appointed 195, and President Reagan named 389 judges.
The next president could refuse to allow research on RU-486 (theso-called abortion pill) and other non-invasive abortion procedures.Medical abortion is close to gaining FDA approval, but may not be upfor the presidential seal of approval until the new administrationtakes office.
Our next president could also refuse to allow the importation ofRU-486 for personal use. The FDA allows medication to be imported forpersonal use if it is not available or accessible in this country.
RU-486 had been on the list of medications banned for importation.On his first day in office, President Clinton issued an executiveorder overturning this ban, but an anti-abortion president couldagain issue a ban by executive order.
The next president may sympathize with protesters who harass womenand disrupt services at clinics. He or she could withdraw federalmarshals from protecting clinics, inevitably adding to the mountingfigure of more than 2,000 acts of violence committed against abortionproviders.
During his tenure in office, President Reagan imposed a gag ruleon family planning providers, prohibiting those who received federalfunds from including abortion in discussions about pregnancy options.
President Clinton issued an order rescinding this prohibition, butit could easily be reinstated. President Clinton’s pick for U.S.Surgeon General never gained office because an anti-abortionlegislature opposed the fact that Dr. Henry Foster had performed ahandful of abortions in his 30-year medical career.
They overlooked every other facet of Foster’s career and focusedsolely on the issue of abortion. A zealous Congress coupled with ananti-abortion president would guarantee a surgeon general who wasfeverishly opposed to abortion and family planning.
The next president will also appoint cabinet-level healthofficials, including the secretary of health and human services whonames a person to lead the Food and Drug Administration, NationalInstitutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control.
The next president will determine whether American women continueto enjoy their hard-won reproductive freedoms or if they will havethe clock rolled back 30 years. If we do not make our voices heard atthe ballot box, we may well lose the right to choose in 2000.
Sue Dunlap is the director of public affairs at Planned Parenthoodof San Diego and Riverside Counties. This column is the opinion ofthe columnist and not The Daily Aztec.
