Abortion’s split decision

Saturday, Jan. 17, 1998 | 7:06 a.m.

From Liz Carrasco's vantage point at Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, Roe vs. Wade spared millions of women from often-fatal, back-alley abortions.

To Kris Jensen of pro-life Nevada Concerned Citizens, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision has led to the murder of millions of unborn human beings.

Thursday marks the 25th anniversary of the high court decision that legalized abortion, and drove a deep emotional wedge between pro-choice and pro-life forces. Nevadans on both sides agree there is no end in sight to their tug of war.

Carrasco, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, the family planning and abortion clinic at 3220 W. Charleston Blvd., said there is a misconception that pro-choice advocates are "pro-abortion."

"That would mean we would choose abortion over children, and that's not true," she said. "We just want women to be able to control when they can procreate."

Jensen, a fellow Las Vegan who chairs her 10,000-member organization from an office in her home, has no qualms about calling her foes "pro-abortion." She believes the Roe decision has been wrongfully applied as an alternative to birth control.

"Take the Declaration of Independence, which says we have an unalienable right from our creator, the right to life and liberty," Jensen said. "That is what is being violated through abortion, the right to life."

Both sides of the abortion debate are planning events coinciding with the Roe decision anniversary.

A pro-life candlelight prayer vigil, the 5th annual Lights For Life, will be held at 7 tonight on the steps of the Foley Federal Building at 300 Las Vegas Blvd. South.

Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada is hosting a "Power of Choice" breakfast 8-9:30 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 29, at the Golden Nugget hotel-casino at 129 Fremont St.

Even though Southern Nevada's population has exploded, the number of reported abortions in Clark County dropped from 4,074 in 1991 to 3,535 in 1995. The rate of abortions per 1,000 live births also declined from 336.7 to 211 over the same period. Washoe County, by comparison, has had a much higher abortion rate for at least the past 10 years.

Carrasco said she would like to think the decline in local abortions is due to increased awareness of family planning and contraception. But she said more needs to be done.

"They're not teaching enough about contraception and birth control in school, and they're not teaching enough about diseases," she said. "When kids come forward and ask for information, they are acting responsibly. What (pro-life advocates) are constantly denying is that these kids are already having sex. We support abstinence, but we live in the real world."

But Janine Hansen, state president of pro-life Nevada Families Eagle Forum in Sparks, accused pro-choice groups of spreading misinformation.

"The radical feminists told us abortion would make every baby wanted and loved, but it has cheapened life at every age," Hansen said. "Child abuse has gone up 500 percent in the period since Roe vs. Wade. You have babies left in toilets and garbage cans. The whole nation has lost because we have degenerated into an amoral abyss."

Planned Parenthood reports that before Roe, there were as many as 1.2 million illegal abortions per year nationwide. The group asserts the death rate for women undergoing legal abortions is one in 8,700 to 500,000, depending on the stage of pregnancy, compared to one in 3,000 for illegal procedures.

Planned Parenthood also argues that for every $1 spent by government to pay for abortions for poor women, about $4 is saved in public medical and welfare expenditures incurred as a result of an unintended birth.

Eagle Forum counters that since Roe, more than 40 million unborn children have been killed. The organization also blames the court decision for other societal ills, such as millions of fatherless children and rampant teen pregnancies. The group also argues that millions of women have suffered physical and emotional complications following abortions.

History lesson

Nevada's first abortion law dated back to the 1880s, when the procedure was allowed only to preserve the life of the mother.

Thirty years ago, Mary Frazzini, a former pro-choice assemblywoman from Reno, attempted to liberalize that law by removing criminal penalties from certain abortions performed by licensed physicians. But the Assembly killed her bill in 1969, and the state Senate axed her second and final effort in 1971 after it passed the lower chamber.

Two years later, however, the Supreme Court opinion written by then-Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe sank Nevada's 90-year-old law. The decision, made on the basis of due process under the 14th Amendment, legalized all first-trimester abortions.

Second-trimester abortions were also permitted, though states were given room to regulate such procedures "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." States were also allowed to ban all late-term abortions except those performed to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Federal courts have since narrowed the scope of Roe, but pro-life groups remain frustrated that the decision has not been overturned and therefore are looking for alternative strategies.

Hansen suggested one way around Roe would be for Congress to strip the federal courts of their jurisdiction over abortion, and then pass pro-life legislation. But Gary Peck, executive director of the pro-choice American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said such a suggestion was ludicrous and would violate the constitutional separation of powers.

"We are not advocating abortion," Peck said. "We are talking about the right to choose. Our opponents want to return us to times when abortions were dangerous and shameless. It is an act of violence, we believe, to force an unwilling woman to bear an unwanted child."

Nevadans overwhelmingly voiced support for the Roe decision in 1990 with passage of Question 7 on the general election ballot. The result is a current law that legalizes all abortions performed by licensed physicians within 24 weeks of pregnancy. Late-term abortions are also legal to preserve the life or health of the mother.

All late-term abortions and other procedures where the physician believes the fetus has a chance to survive outside the womb must be performed in hospitals. Physicians also must certify the pregnant woman's age, marital status and informed written consent.

But a 1992 Supreme Court decision, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey, is the reason many states have recently passed laws making it more difficult to obtain abortions. The high court gave states leeway to regulate the procedure so long as they didn't place an "undue burden" on women.

The court upheld a Pennsylvania law that required pregnant minors to get their parents' consent. The law also established a 24-hour cooling off period before women seeking abortions could obtain them.

Casey gave renewed hope to pro-life forces in Nevada, where two separate parental consent laws passed in the 1980s were ruled unconstitutional by federal courts. But attempts to revive parental consent legislation were killed in the state Senate in 1993 and 1995.

A bill draft was prepared for another attempt last session but was never introduced because pro-life advocates conceded they still didn't have the votes.

Pro-life state Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks, a church pastor who authored the 1995 bill, said it was hypocritical that minors must get parental consent for certain medical procedures but not for abortion.

"There's a certain moral obligation parents have regarding the welfare of their children," Washington said. "If someone says they won't tell their parents because they fear abuse, there are already child abuse laws that say we must act."

During the 1995 session, pro-choice Sen. Bob Coffin, D-Las Vegas, offered an amendment to Washington's bill that would have permitted minors to seek consent from clergymen rather than their parents or a judge. Coffin said his intent was to avoid making abortion an issue in all judicial races.

"On parental notification, my position has evolved over time," Coffin said. "I've always been a live-and-let-live person. I don't support letting government stick its nose in people's business all the time, but I came to the conclusion after dozens of hours of testimony that there are ways to make (parental notification) work."

The Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, which opened in Las Vegas in February, offers counseling to women before they undergo the procedure. Carrasco said 90 percent of the 14- and 15-year-old girls who attend such sessions are accompanied by their parents. About half the 17- and 18-year-olds bring a parent or their partner.

Though parental involvement is encouraged, it doesn't always occur because the pregnant teen could be in an abusive situation, Carrasco said.

"It's not a quick decision," she said. "When a lady chooses to do this, we make sure it's of their own free will. If they're not sure, we'll send them home."

But Jensen would like the state to require physicians to verbally explain the risks of abortion to women seeking the procedure, rather than simply having them sign a consent form.

"When they find out the truth, they're not as pro-choice as they think they are," Jensen said.

Peck countered that such verbal counseling sessions can lead to pro-life biases. He added that the ACLU, which has participated in nearly every major lawsuit in defense of Roe, will continue to fight issues such as informed consent, 24-hour waiting periods and parental notification.

"We have seen denial of (abortion) access for poor women and teens," Peck said. "We let teens have access to all sorts of things related to sexuality and childbirth, but we single out abortion for special treatment and that is inconsistent. Teens have C-sections in many states without parental consent, and C-sections are far more dangerous than abortions."

Efforts by pro-life forces to chip away at Roe have also extended to Congress. Bills passed Congress in 1996 and 1997 to ban a specific late-term abortion procedure termed "partial birth." President Clinton vetoed both bills, arguing they didn't take women's health into account, but the legislation is bound to be reintroduced.

The procedure involves extracting the fetus, legs first, through the birth canal by cutting into the skull and draining its contents. Pro-life groups estimate 3,000-5,000 such procedures are performed nationally each year.

But that represents only a miniscule percentage of the more than 1 million abortions performed annually, 90 percent of which involve first-trimester pregnancies.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Nevada Republican Reps. John Ensign and Jim Gibbons voted for the ban, terming it a gruesome procedure. Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., was the lone member of Nevada's congressional delegation to vote against the ban.

Ensign, a former pro-choice advocate who switched to pro-life about 10 years ago, was so determined to support the proposed ban he convinced then-Rep. Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., to vote his way. That was quite a feat considering Molinari, a pro-choice advocate, created a stir among some pro-life forces when she was named keynote speaker at the 1996 Republican National Convention.

"It's a brutal procedure and it needs to be outlawed," Ensign said. "It's a winning issue for the pro-life side."

Gibbons agreed that the procedure must be banned, even though he is pro-choice.

"Any human being who understands the process would have voted the same way," he said.

Pro-choice Bryan agreed the procedure is brutal, but said he voted against the ban because the legislation didn't include exceptions for the health of the mother. Instead, he backed an unsuccessful amendment last year by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., that would have prohibited abortion of a viable fetus unless a woman's life or health was at risk.

"The (ban) advocates wanted to provide no exception for the health of the mother," Bryan said. "This is an attempt to chip away at the right to have an abortion. Obviously it's a gruesome procedure, but it's a question of saving the life of the mother."

Peck also argued that the term "partial birth" is vague and bears no relationship to medical literature on abortion.

"What they're really doing is going after abortion in general," he said.

The House has had enough votes to override Clinton, but the Senate approvals haven't been by veto-proof margins. Consequently, Ensign predicted senators who voted against the ban will be vulnerable during November's election.

Ensign is challenging Reid for the senator's seat in what observers expect to be the most hotly contested Nevada political race this year. But don't expect abortion to be an issue if Ensign wins the contested Republican primary and faces Reid in the general election. Both men are pro-life and voted for the partial-birth ban.

Abortion has the potential to be an issue, however, if retired businessman Bruce James of Crystal Bay wins the GOP primary; he is pro-choice. But James also supports a ban on partial-birth abortions.

Both Ensign and Reid also have voiced support for a pro-life constitutional amendment. Ensign said he would still vote for the amendment but doubted it would ever get enough support.

"The only chance of overturning Roe is in the courts," Ensign said. "A constitutional amendment wouldn't pass. But I don't think a constitutional amendment should even be necessary. Roe vs. Wade was one of the worst judicial decisions ever made."

Reid, however, has backed off from support of a constitutional amendment since first taking that position when he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 1974.

"Twenty-four years later, I think we have to try to be more constructive," Reid said. "We're better off trying to stop violence at abortion clinics and making sure there's enough money for family planning."

Reid this year has joined pro-choice Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, by co-sponsoring a bill that would require insurance companies to cover contraceptive drugs and devices in their health care plans.

"My personal feeling is we have to focus on how to reduce the number of abortions," he said. "Women pay 70 percent more for (out-of-pocket) health care costs than men because of the problem with contraceptive costs."

Since Roe, Nevada has managed to avoid the violence that has beset abortion clinics in other states. But the state has had its share of rallies, protests, and graphic literature related to the controversial medical procedure.

Just as Nevada voters often cross party lines in choosing candidates, many of the state's politicians also have gone against their respective parties on the abortion issue. The national Democratic Party has a pro-choice position, but two of the most prominent Nevada Democrats, Reid and Gov. Bob Miller, are pro-life.

"It's like arguing religion," Reid said. "You're better off just saying that's your position. It's a personal issue with me. I've never given a speech on the Senate floor about abortion."

The national GOP favors a pro-life plank, but Gibbons is one of several elected Nevada Republicans who is pro-choice.

"What I feel is important is that government be the least intrusive in our lives," Gibbons said. "That's why I don't think it's appropriate for people in government to decide issues that are appropriate for the mother, the father, the physician or the minister."

There is no evidence abortion has ever decided the outcome of a Nevada political race in recent years. One explanation, Reid said, is that outside groups rarely have used the state as an abortion battleground.

"It's because Nevada candidates haven't required that help," he said.

Added Ensign: "If you're pro-choice and you make it an issue, you'll lose on it. And if you are pro-life and make an issue of it, you'll lose on it. People are tired of having it shoved in their face."

But advocates on both sides agree abortion attracts more single-issue voters than perhaps any other topic. That's one reason Nevada Concerned Citizens informs its membership on how local politicians stand on the issue.

"When we do newsletters, the abortion issue raises the most ire," Jensen said.

Gibbons conceded it was difficult for politicians to state their abortion position without alienating voters. But he said it was even worse to waiver from a stated position.

"It's not the kind of an issue in which compromises are achieved," Bryan added. "The issue is as divisive today, maybe more so, than when Roe vs. Wade was decided."

Clark County District Judge Don Chairez, a potential congressional candidate, said last year that he switched party affiliations from Democrat to Republican partly because he opposed abortion.

"I no longer believe a pro-life Democrat can win a Democratic primary," he said last November.

State politicians generally are reluctant to make abortion an issue, but the debate does flare up on occasion.

A noteworthy example occurred during the 1994 Democratic gubernatorial primary, when Miller stated during a televised political debate that he signed a petition to put the Question 7 abortion initiative on the 1990 ballot. That prompted his pro-choice challenger, Las Vegas Mayor Jan Laverty Jones, to call a news conference disputing his assertion.

Nevada Republicans also agonized over the issue leading up to the 1996 elections. The state party's platform committee decided to sidestep the issue by noting "the question of abortion is of such a moral and sensitive nature that it should belong in the domain of individuals, parents, churches and family."

State GOP delegates to their party's national convention that year also were divided on the abortion plank. Like Republicans elsewhere, they were split among those who wanted a pro-life platform and those who feared their party would lose moderate voters.

The reluctance of politicians to openly debate abortion is a barrier Washington said must be overcome in order for issues such as parental notification to have a chance in Nevada.

"It's a controversial subject, and a lot of legislators don't want to deal with it," he said. "It's very divisive."

Hansen, however, accused the state Democratic and Republican parties of pressuring their candidates not to take an abortion stand.

"I would like to see them stand on their principles if they have some," she said. "But they have no principles. They just run to win."

Washington, who is seeking re-election this year, said he may introduce a bill during the 1999 legislative session to ban partial-birth abortions. At least 17 states have passed such bans, though some are being challenged in court and others have been vetoed by governors.

"Unless we change the hearts and minds of people in the state, it will be hard to pass these (anti-abortion) bills," Washington said.

Despite the call for parental notification, pregnant teens represented only about 15 percent of the abortions in Clark County and 17 percent statewide from 1990 to 1995, according to the State Health Division. About 75 percent of pregnant teens in Nevada carry their pregnancies to full term.

But Coffin said the state must still do something about its teen pregnancy rate, which is one of the highest in the nation.

"I wish the student newspapers at the high schools would publish full-page ads with a simple and clear digest of what the law says a person must do if he's a parent," Coffin said.

"You should be aware of the consequences that there are heavy financial responsibilities. If you choose not to raise a child, you'll be forced to pay child support. That would cause many youngsters to think twice."

To help reduce abortions, Hansen said she would like to see more private pregnancy counseling centers and adoption programs in Nevada.

"I would never look to the government to solve any problem," she said.

Jensen, who has five children, said her pro-life position solidified in the early 1980s while she shared a hospital room with a patient who was undergoing an abortion. Jensen later volunteered for a crisis pregnancy center in Las Vegas.

"Seeing the situations people were in, it was heartbreaking," she said. "A lot of women came in scared to death. I've sat with girls after abortions and watched them cry."

Pro-life forces in Congress have won many battles to reduce or eliminate federal funding for abortion, Ensign said.

"Most Americans want to see abortions limited to the first trimester, and they don't want to see it used as birth control," he said. "They also don't want to see federal funds being used."

Gibbons also has opposed taxpayer funding for abortion but has supported family planning measures.

"If we educate the masses in Third World countries about family planning, it will reduce the need for massive aid to those countries," he said.

archive