c.1997 The Arizona Republic
PHOENIX—Gov. Fife Symington on Thursday signed into law a banon ``partial birth'' abortions, a procedure he described as ``anabomination.''
Symington, surrounded by several conservative Republicans andopponents of abortion rights, praised state lawmakers for havingthe courage to approve the ban.
Arizona joins about 30 other states that have banned theprocedure or are considering doing so. Congress is considering asimilar ban.
``Our representatives have spoken, and they have wisely rejectedthe killing of a partly born child,'' the governor said.
The new law will make it a felony for physicians to perform thelate-term procedure sometimes called partial-birth abortion unlessit is necessary to save the life of the mother. In such anabortion, the fetus is partially delivered feet first, and then itshead is pierced and collapsed to complete the procedure.
The measure, which was defeated and revived several times, wasapproved by the Legislature on Tuesday over the objections of twoSenate Rules Committee attorneys, who said it is unconstitutional.
It was narrowly approved in the Senate on a vote of 16-14, withfive Republicans voting against the bill and three Democrats votingin favor. The ban then passed by a wider margin in the House,33-21, with six Republicans breaking ranks to vote against the billand five Democrats crossing party lines to vote yes.
Bruce Miller, executive director of Arizona Right to Choose,said several abortion-rights groups plan to file suit over the banbefore it takes effect in July.
``Right from the day we first saw this, our interpretation wasthat it was unconstitutional,'' Miller said. ``Then, both SenateRules Committee attorneys, in an independent analysis, said it wasunconstitutional.''
He described such bans as ``litmus-test'' laws that opponents ofabortion rights hope to use to set up a confrontation over Roe vs.Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortions inAmerica.
``This is a partial step to challenging Roe vs. Wade,'' Millersaid. ``They are whittling away at a woman's right to abortion bytaking away one little procedure at a time.''
Symington also signed four education bills into law Thursday.They will:
_Allow school districts to sell advertising on buses, as long asthey don't promote substances that are illegal for minors.
_Allow teachers to keep chronically disruptive students out oftheir classrooms until the students go before a special schoolcommittee.
_Allow home-schooled students to participate in interscholasticactivities at public schools.
_Allow parents and teachers at certain back-to-basics ortraditional public schools to select their own representatives toschool site councils.<
c.1997 San Francisco Examiner
CALISTOGA, Calif.—I'm sitting on the edge of a hot mineralpool, relaxing with two close friends. We can't help but notice theheterosexual couples around us, kissing above the water, grindingpelvises and other body parts below.
Several lesbian couples at the resort stand close, maybewhispering, but scrupulously avoiding touching.
My 3-and-1/2-year-old is not with me, but not far from my mind,as I watch children swim and play. I think about the message shewould get if she were here: Heterosexuality is acceptable anywhere;homosexuality, only behind closed doors.
I wonder if these pairs of heterosexuals, especially those whoare parents, would tolerate it if the lesbians were sticking theirtongues into each other's mouths, pushing their faces into eachother's breasts and caressing each other's buttocks as the straightcouples feel free to do. (My friends urge me to ask one of thelesbian couples to try it, for journalism's sake, but I don't havethe nerve.)
I try to reframe the scene in my mind to permit gay sexuality,but it's difficult. Just as the heterosexual couples are accustomedto behaving in this manner, lesbians and gay men are accustomed tonot expressing our sexuality in most of the public places we go,except the Castro in San Francisco and a few bars and restaurants.
The public places I normally go with my child—playgrounds,parks, museums and `` family'' restaurants—are not places she islikely to see lesbian or gay couples embracing.
As dusk falls, more couples lock into caresses. Do I want theright to do the same? I'm not sure.
I don't think children enjoy being confronted with theirparents' sexuality. But I do want the relentlessly heterosexualmessages that are hammered into children by a never-ending barrageof advertising, magazines, newspapers, movies, TV shows and evenmost children's books to be tempered with something else.
Otherwise, the societal preference for heterosexuality will beabsorbed not only by my child, but by my nieces, nephew and all theother children in my life. Teaching tolerance and acceptance is anuphill battle in this atmosphere.
The couples I'm sharing this pool with are oblivious to theproblem their display presents to me, just as they are oblivious tothe distance the lesbian couples are keeping between them.
I have lived this scene, this situation, a million times and amlikely to see it repeated a million more. If it could be turnedaround, just for a day, just at this resort, or just at one bar forone night, the effect on the heterosexual couples would be in noway similar to my experience.
My experience must be measured by its overwhelming constancyand, more important, its overwhelming effect.
^Examiner contributor Mindy Spatt, a San Francisco writer, is alegal analyst with California Continuing Education of the Bar.
Go back to SOCIOLOGY 260 -- Sociology of Marriage and the Family Page
If you have any questions or comments please email: