Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 3, 1993 TAG: 9302030280
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAVID NOVA
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
STRENGTHEN VIRGINIA LAW ENSURING ACCESS TO MEDICAL FACILITIES
THE SUPREME Court recently ruled that blockading abortion clinics is no longer a violation of federal law. The decision lifts nearly two dozen injunctions against Operation Rescue and anti-abortion organizations that blockade medical facilities.In the Roanoke Times & World-News' Jan. 19 editorial "Punish the behavior, not the belief," you indicate that "the Supreme Court's ruling has left a gap in protecting citizens' rights that Congress may wish not to ignore." You go on to say that "Congress should be careful that behavior is kept separate from belief."
These are wise words. Anti-abortion protesters should not be singled out because of their convictions. What must be at issue is not the motivations and intentions of Operation Rescue but the action of forcibly denying women access to medical facilities.
Yet, your words have a hollow ring. On the one hand, you urge Congress to consider the behavior and not the belief, but you fail to apply the same standard to the Supreme Court. It is the Supreme Court's decision itself that is worthy of your scrutiny.
Five justices ruled that federal judges could no longer stop abortion foes from blockading medical facilities. These are the same five justices - Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, White and Thomas - who have, at one time or another, ruled in favor of overturning the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. The four justices who dissented - Stevens, O'Connor, Souter (partially) and Blackmun - have never ruled against the landmark decision legalizing abortion. Since June, constitutional scholars have correctly predicted the 5-4 outcome in this case, based upon the individual justices' positions on abortion.
Some of the arguments made in the majority's opinion were specious, at best. Justice Scalia argued "that because not all women favor abortion rights, then women seeking abortions do not qualify as a protected class . . . " Using this logic, one could conclude that if you could find some African-Americans favoring race discrimination, then blacks should not be a protected class. Justice Scalia's judgment may have been influenced by his strong opposition to abortion.
In addition, Scalia failed to consider that just 20 years ago the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of women to have an abortion. Though he considers the Roe vs. Wade decision to be "bad law," it nonetheless remains the law of the land. Would not interfering in the ability to exercise the right violate the U.S. Constitution? The court had the latitude to say exactly that and yet it chose not to.
Had the tables been reversed, I believe the ruling would have been different. Let us say that crisis-pregnancy centers, and not abortion clinics, were being blockaded. And assume it was hundreds of pro-choice supporters, not Operation Rescue, that were forcibly denying access to these anti-abortion counseling centers. Does the editorial staff of this newspaper believe that the recent Supreme Court ruling would have been the same? Would all those justices hostile to abortion rights have ruled likewise? Would the justices who dissented have done the same? Probably not.
Speculating on what might have been has its limitations. The highest court in the land has ruled, and its judgment is final. It is now up to Congress and individual state legislatures to "plug the gap" left in the wake of the court's ruling. Congress must now act quickly to avoid an inevitable increase in clinic blockades and confrontations between abortion-rights supporters and opponents at the doors of medical buildings.
Already, the use of clinic blockades has begun to escalate. The ruling by the Supreme Court can account for part of this increase. The election of President Clinton also has contributed to the more frequent obstruction of medical centers providing abortion.
With a pro-choice president in the White House, it is unlikely that abortion will be outlawed in the near future, either by the Supreme Court or the federal government. In lieu of this, the tactics of Operation Rescue now are seen as the most effective means for denying abortion to women. Those who have sought an end to abortion by changing the law may begin to adopt less than lawful strategies for barring access to abortion. Congress must act before this happens.
Our congressional representatives must recognize, however, the potential hazards and imminent concern spawned by the court's decision. Members of Congress have a responsibility as lawmakers to keep the peace. Women cannot rely solely on state law to keep medical facilities open.
This is especially true for women in Virginia. It is no coincidence that the recent Supreme Court decision involved a Virginia clinic. Virginia law has been ineffectual in deterring abortion protesters from engaging in blockades. Prior to the ruling, clinics in Virginia could appeal to federal judges for assistance. Not anymore.
The Roanoke Times & World-News should endorse a bill currently before the Virginia General Assembly. The Clinic Access Bill would require minimum mandatory sentences for individuals who repeatedly impede access to medical facilities. It strengthens existing state law and sends a clear message that interfering in the ability to access medical care (for any reason) will not be tolerated.
What's more, it does not single out those who oppose abortion rights for women. In this respect, it meets your objective: "Block the behavior, not the belief."
David Nova is the public-affairs director for Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge.