
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, July 1, 1993                   TAG: 9309010290
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A15   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: MARK RUSH
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

BEYOND PRO-CHOICE

WITH THE inclusion of abortion as a standard benefit of the president's health package, and the push by Democrats to get the Freedom of Choice Act through the House, the administration and the Democratic leadership apparently have shifted from a pro-choice to a pro-abortion standpoint, and thereby rekindled fires that appeared to have been put to rest a year ago with the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey.

Although the president's plan does not call for abortion on demand, it does, for all intents and purposes, create such a right. It includes a conscience provision that permits HMOs that do not wish to perform abortions to opt out of doing so - as long as they contract with other HMOs that do. Although this seems like a reasonable option on the surface, it will no doubt place extra pressures on doctors in rural areas, where HMOs are fewer and farther between than in urban areas.

The Freedom of Choice Act seeks, effectively, not only to override the Casey decision but also to create an even stronger right to an abortion than that created by Roe vs. Wade. If the FOCA passes in its current form, states will be denied virtually any leeway in handling abortion issues.

Ironically, after some 20 years of wrestling with the abortion issue, it appears that we, as a nation, cannot live with the moderate position set forth by the Casey decision. Zealots on both sides continue to dominate the debate in an attempt to impose extremist legislation - either to ban abortion or to make it available virtually on demand. They speak in terms of ``fundamental rights'' in a manner that betrays either an unwillingness to acknowledge the complexity of abortion issues or an ignorance of the availability of less extreme methods of resolving the controversy and less fervent ways of discussing it.

Were we to pause and look beyond our borders, we might come to understand the folly inherent in the approach taken by our local extremists. Virtually no other country discusses abortion in terms as absolute as we do. Instead, most begin with the assumption that abortion is a complex moral issue and develop moderate legislation.

The Casey decision expressed moderate sentiments that reflected those of an overwhelming majority (some 80 percent, at the time of the decision) of the American populace: We don't approve of an outright ban and therefore the criminalization of abortions, but we don't think they should be available on demand either. This view is quite similar to the opinions about and policies concerning abortion in many other Western nations.

In fact, until the Casey decision, the federal view of abortion represented a radical departure from the policies of other nations. To the extent that the trimester system from Roe had endured some whittling down in other cases, such as Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, the United States had, by far, the most liberal abortion law in the world. In no other country could a woman make a decision concerning her pregnancy without government interference for three months.

The Casey decision brought us more into line with the world by permitting states not only to regulate and limit abortions, but to play an affirmative role in ensuring that a woman's decision to have an abortion was an informed one by providing her with information concerning the risks as well as the availability of other options.

In other countries, the government is expected to play such a role. In the West German abortion decision of 1975, for example, the Supreme Court denied that abortion on demand was a fundamental right because of the compelling necessity to respect the life of the unborn. However, the court also argued that insofar as the state was bound to protect the unborn, it also had to help the mother and the child throughout the pregnancy and after birth. ``The state will ... be expected to offer counseling and assistance with the goal of reminding pregnant women of the fundamental duty to respect the life of the unborn, to encourage her to continue her pregnancy and - especially in cases of social need - to support her through practical measures of assistance.'' Whereas Europeans regard such state support and counseling as part of a fundamental community responsibility, many Americans regard it as ``harassment.''

We could learn a lot from other countries that have taken a more moderate and conciliatory approach to the abortion issue. The so-called ``fundamental'' rights at stake are no more fundamental in the United States than they are anywhere else. Abortion and unwanted pregnancies are egregious and pressing issues no matter where they occur.

The real problem seems to lie in our collective myopia - or perhaps arrogance - which prevents our appreciating the fact that extreme and unyielding approaches to the abortion issue might actually be less constructive than those employed by other countries.

\ Mark Rush is an assistant professor of politics at Washington & Lee University.

by CNB