YIELDING NOT AN INCH: THE PARTIAL-TRUTH ABORTION FIGHT

c.1997 N.Y. Times News Service<

In last month's issue of Ms. magazine, in a jumble ofhealth-related dispatches on page 36, lurks the headline, ``Does abortion cause breast cancer?'' The first four and a half lines oftext below it note that one study concludes that women who have had abortions are 30 percent more likely to develop the disease.

But perhaps more interesting, and more illuminating, is what thenext and final seven and a half lines of text do. They belittle theresults, telling readers that women living in cities, after all,have a 50 percent higher risk of breast cancer. No sooner doesabortion receive a tiny, possibly insignificant bruise than a freshcoat of makeup is applied to its cheek.

Outside the pages of Ms., in the halls of Congress and thescattered offices of Planned Parenthood and other organizations,there is something similarly reflexive and, to many observers,unyielding in the way abortion rights advocates have come to reactto any potentially unflattering information.

The recent confession of one advocate that he deliberately liedabout the frequency of a controversial form of late-term abortionsuggests a movement enveloped by an extremism that prohibitsconcessions, compromise, maybe even candor.

But if such an atmosphere exists, it has arisen from a politicalbattle so passionate and divisive that warriors on both sides feelthat all is fair, that no weapon is out of bounds, and that anyadmission of weakness could give the enemy an opportunity for totalconquest.

``Both sides in the public debate are dominated by hard-linerswho can see no compromise and give no quarter,'' said Stephen L.Carter, a Yale law professor who has written extensively onabortion (though he hasn't stated his own view).

Speaking specifically of abortion rights advocates, he added:``They feel that any step in the other direction can lead them downa slippery slope to taking away all their basic rights. They feelthat virtue is found in being uncompromising, and they're clearlyon the defensive.''

What has put them there is the recent wrangling over a kind oflate-term abortion, called ``partial birth abortion'' by opponentsand ``intact dilation and extraction'' by defenders, in which afetus is partly extracted from the birth canal and then its brainis suctioned out before the rest of the body is removed.

Last year, President Clinton vetoed a ban on the procedurebecause it did not include an exception in cases when the mother'sgeneral health was at risk, only when her life was jeopardized. Thepresident also said the procedure was extremely rare and donemostly in medical emergencies.

But last month Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of theNational Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted that suchlate-term abortions were more common, and the reasons for themsometimes less urgent, than advocates had led people to believe.Fitzsimmons said that in an interview with ``Nightline'' in 1995 hehimself had lied about those facts.

In a telephone interview last week, Fitzsimmons declined to talkabout why he lied. He simply stated that it was time for moretruth-telling in general in the abortion debate.

The writer Anne Roiphe, whose most recent book is ``Fruitful: aReal Mother in the Modern World,'' agrees. Although she said shesteadfastly supports abortion rights, Ms. Roiphe added that for toolong, too many women like her have felt inhibited about discussingthe emotional ambivalence behind their political certainty, lestthey inadvertently assist the other side.

It is a siege mentality that has kept many who favor abortionrights silent about their qualms over late-term abortions and haspushed some toward an unequivocal defense of them. ``There areradical differences between a four-week-old fetus and aneight-month-old fetus,'' Ms. Roiphe said. ``Every woman knows thisin her heart. But her politics tells her there is no difference.''

Such attitudes have evolved from a conviction that something ofthe utmost importance is at stake, a right so treasured, and yet soseemingly tenuous, that there is constant dread of its loss.

For some of its defenders, abortion is also clearly a symbol ofone of the earliest and most decisive triumphs of the women'sliberation movement. These leaders are fighting for something bothbroader and vaguer than the option to terminate pregnancies, whichis why they remain as tenacious as ever despite the advent of anabortion pill and the promise of other medical strides that mightrender at least certain aspects of the abortion debate moot.

But their victories have come at what even some supporters sayis the cost of complete honesty. ``There's a feeling amongadvocates that this is a transcendent cause, and that the moralityof the cause is more important than the morality of the means topromote the cause,'' said Daniel Callahan, a medical ethicist atthe Hastings Center who has written two books about abortion.

Callahan, who identifies himself as pro-choice, said thismentality is shared by the opponents of abortion as well, whom hecriticized in particular for not accepting responsibility for theviolence that sometimes follows their use of inflammatory words.

Callahan said that from the beginning of the crusade forabortion rights, the efficacy of certain arguments was deemed moreimportant than their veracity. He recalled that in the late 1960s,one argument of abortion-rights forces was that the illegality ofabortion was men's way of suppressing women by keeping thempregnant, if not barefoot and in the kitchen.

But he said that in private talks with campaigners, they wouldtell of men pleading with, or coercing, women to have abortionsbecause the men didn't want responsibility for children.

``I said, `Gee, that's interesting—we never hear about that,''' Callahan recalled. ``And they said to me: `We're not going tosay that. That's not going to help us. We've got a good story—thesuppression of women—and we're not going to muddle it.' ''

Callahan said the same partial truth-telling characterizes someadvocates for AIDS victims concerned that any admission ofcontinued promiscuity would sacrifice public sympathy for gay men.Similarly, he said, anti-smoking campaigners trumped up thesignificance of studies on second-hand smoke, reasoning that theywere on the side of the angels.

But the abortion wars, he said, have provided the best paradigmof what he calls a new ``ethics of advocacy,'' modeled after thecombative behavior of lawyers in a courtroom, in which the qualityof facts takes a back seat to the deftness of their manipulation.

That style, say observers of the abortion fight, marks not justdefenders of abortion but also their opponents. The anti-abortionfilm ``Silent Scream,'' for example, was deemed by many physiciansto be a gross misrepresentation. The current anti-abortion campaignaimed at schools has encountered similar criticism.

The result, sadly, is skepticism, if not cynicism, among themajority of Americans whose opinions put them between the twodistant, rigid poles in the debate. ``I don't know how they havestatistics on some of the things they say they do,'' Dr. LynnRosenberg, a professor at Boston University's School of Medicine,said of both sides. ``So I don't believe anything.''

c. 1997 N.Y. Times News Service<

In the 24 years since Roe vs. Wade, American women have neverbeen more in danger of losing their constitutional right to an abortion than they are this week—but so farcical, if far fromfunny, has been the debate surrounding ``partial-birth abortions''that many Americans, congressmen included, don't have a clue as towhat is really going on.

Confusion, deliberate and not, has been sowed on both sides ofthe issue, with each new ``controversy'' making the truth murkier.The latest chapter is typical. A man named Ron Fitzsimmons _routinely described in the press as a ``prominent'' abortion-rightsleader—announced that he had ``lied'' when he told Ted Koppel in1995 that there were only 500 ``partial-birth abortions'' inAmerica each year; he now says there are 5,000. But as FranklinFoer reports in Slate, Fitzsimmons is not prominent; his 1995``lie,'' though filmed, never aired on ``Nightline''; and ``thereis nothing new about what he `revealed.' '' That obscure journalThe Washington Post suggested last fall that as many as severalthousand of the procedures, known medically as intact dilation andextraction (IDE), may be performed each year. No reliablestatistics exist.

The issue is not how many, in any event, but why any at all?Even if 10,000 such abortions occurred each year, that would stillbe a tiny minority of America's annual 1.5 million abortions. Whywould any woman choose to have a fetus pulled out by a grotesqueprocess that requires its skull to be crushed to pass through thecervix?

Opponents of ``partial-birth abortion'' say these women are inthe final weeks or days of pregnancy—even ``just seconds'' awayfrom delivery, as Jack Kemp put it during the campaign—when theywhimsically opt for ``infanticide.'' Not true; such a scenario isalready illegal. Under Roe vs. Wade, states can ban all abortionsin the third trimester of pregnancy, except if the health or lifeof the mother is at stake, and 40 states and the District ofColumbia have done so. Only some 600 abortions, no matter what theprocedure, occur after the sixth month of pregnancy in the U.S.each year—all involving a tragically deformed fetus or a motherin peril.

That leaves the several thousand other cases; these occurearlier, before a fetus is viable—months, not days, beforedelivery. But why in a country where 99 percent of abortions occurin the first 20 weeks would a woman wait any longer to have anabortion, let alone one carried out this way? Pro-lifers say suchwomen frivolously make their ``elective'' choice once they findthey can't fit into a prom dress. Perhaps some do. But others whodelay abortions well into the second trimester are poor or ruralwomen who must save up to afford an abortion or a trip to aprovider (84 percent of American counties don't have one); scaredwomen delayed by fear of harassment or violence at their localclinics; teen-age girls who are either in denial or traumatized byparental notification laws (especially if the parent is also thefather) or fighting those laws clandestinely in slow courtproceedings; women who disastrously develop prenatal diabetes, andwomen who learn from amniocentesis (a second-trimester testrequiring a wait for results) of severe fetal anomalies.

Why would such women then choose intact dilation and extraction?They don't; their doctors do—when they feel it's the safestchoice for the patient. By the second trimester, (italics)all(enditalics) abortion procedures are grotesque. The principalalternative to an IDE requires the fetus's dismemberment, and it,too, could be jeopardized by the broad language of Congress's``partial-birth abortion'' ban; what's now on the line is Roe vs.Wade's protection of second-trimester abortions, period.

This is why pro-lifers are right to so strenuously champion theban; it begins the end-run process of gutting Roe vs. Wade a fewprocedures at a time, because those who believe life begins atconception can logically argue that most abortions are``partial-birth abortions.'' Politicians who purport to be``pro-choice'' but vote for this bill, by contrast, are biggerliars than Fitzsimmons. The ``partial-birth abortion'' ban does notstamp out infanticide, which is already illegal, but cripples botha woman's right to choose and a doctor's duty to recommend thesafest of the uniformly awful options for carrying out thatanguished choice.

[Return to Top]

THE NEXT ABORTION FIGHT: A PILL

c.1997 Hearst Newspapers

WASHINGTON—Once again Congress is being distracted fromserious national legislative business by the emotionally polarizedissue of so-called partial birth abortions, an uncommon butparticularly gruesome late-term procedure.

This is a deeply personal matter better left to doctors,ministers and women's own consciences. Our elected representativesshould not be spending their time and the taxpayers' dollars onprotracted, irreconcilable arguments on the subject.

We already went through this last year. Congress passedlegislation outlawing the operation, President Clinton vetoed it,and anti- abortion leaders vowed it would become a major campaignissue.

But GOP nominee Bob Dole, who had dismissed the president'sposition as based on ``some lame excuse,'' suddenly became worriedabout driving away female voters. He dropped the whole subject. Thepresident took most of the women's vote anyway.

The partial-birth issue, however, will not die so long aspowerful political forces, such as the Catholic Church and theChristian Coalition, are convinced that this is the best way tobegin slamming shut the limited constitutional right to an abortionthat the Supreme Court decreed nearly a quarter century ago.

These forces are also spurred by hints that momentum for theircause is stalling. The issue so divides the GOP that it threatensto tear the party apart unless some compromise is reached. And theHouse recently approved for the first time anadministration-supported move to restart a program of fundingoverseas family planning without the anti-abortion restrictionsthat have been in place since early in the Reagan administration.

Fresh questions about how often women resort to partial-birthabortions provide the immediate pretext for a renewed high-decibelcrusade against them. Following a joint House-Senate committeehearing Tuesday (March 11), the House will soon vote on anotherbill forbidding the procedure except to save the life of themother, and the Senate is expected to follow suit this spring.

But an argument based on shaky, unconfirmed statistics aboutwhether this involves 500 or 5,000 women out of a nation of 266million people is not really the point here. The central secularissue, as with most aspects of the abortion debate, is whether thepregnant woman or the fetus should have first claim on life andgood health.

The president's ``lame excuse'' decision came down firmly on theside of the woman. At his press conference last week, he reiteratedhis previous stand that he would okay a ban on the medicalprocedure only if it did not merely exempt a mother whose life wasendangered but if it protected her health and ability to havefuture children as well.

``For the small number of people I am trying to protect, this isthe biggest issue in their entire lives, and for them my positionis the pro-life position,'' Clinton said.

Scoffing anti-abortion forces charge that he is simply toadyingto selfish female voters by insisting on a health loophole thatwould in effect make the ban unenforceable. To soften the negativeimage of seeming cruel toward prospective mothers, the critics haveconcluded that most late-term abortions are not bona fide healthemergencies.

New York Cardinal John O'Connor claimed during mass on Sundaythat ``the vast majority'' of late-term abortions are performed``on the healthy babies of healthy women.'' He did not explain howhe could possibly know this, or why health-endangered women shouldbe denied the chance to protect themselves.

If frivolous feminine late-term abortions are the cardinal'sreal concern, however, how come he and other pro-life activistsdon't endorse the use of birth control pills or devices or the newafter-sex pill RU-486? All are useful tools to greatly reduce thelikelihood of those offensive late-term abortions, which theSupreme Court has stated may be restricted under certainconditions.

Artificial birth control pills and devices have a good trackrecord of preventing pregnancy, freeing women to control their ownlives and the size of their families without resorting to abortion.RU-486, recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration anddue to be distributed in this country by the end of the year, canpromptly terminate unwanted pregnancies before a fertilized eggbecomes a viable fetus.

But anti-abortion forces have fought them as immoral andimpermissible. The battle against birth control pills and deviceswas lost long ago. Polls repeatedly indicate that a majority ofCatholics as well as people of other religions use and approve ofthem.

The battle against RU-486 has just begun. When its creation wasannounced, pro-life forces threatened to boycott the products ofthe pharmaceutical company that developed it. The company thentransferred control over the pill to the Population Council, anonprofit organization that is fearlessly moving ahead to marketit.

Pro-lifers oppose RU-486 primarily because the pill can be takenin the privacy of a doctor's office, eliminating the opportunity topicket clinics and harass women seeking abortions. At last thedecision can be between a woman and her doctor, without moralizingand second-guessing from outsiders.

Then, finally, perhaps Congress will turn to other issues and goback to the full-time business of governing the country.

STATE SENATE VOTES TO BAN ONE TYPE OF ABORTION PROCEDURE

c. 1997 N.Y. Times News Service<

ALBANY, N.Y.—Facing mounting pressure from the state's RomanCatholic bishops, the Republican-controlled State Senate passedlegislation on Monday that would make a certain type of late-term abortion illegal.

The vote coincided with a lobbying blitz by the bishops, whowill be meeting in Albany on Tuesday with top legislators and theiraides to press the church's agenda, which includes banning thelate-term abortion procedure that doctors call intact dilation andextraction.

The measure is expected to face fierce opposition in theDemocratic-controlled Assembly, where similar bills have repeatedlydied in the past. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan,said on Monday that he would once again leave it to the HealthCommittee to decide the bill's fate—all but guaranteeing itsdeath for this year since most of the committee members oppose it.

``I would expect it to be defeated,'' said Assemblyman RichardGottfried, D-Manhattan, who is chairman of the Health Committee.

Still, opponents of abortion said they would push for a vote bythe entire house that would force the committee to release the billfor a vote on the Assembly floor. The bill's proponents contendthat they have just enough votes to pass the bill—thoughopponents dispute that.

Gov. George Pataki, who describes himself as a supporter ofabortion rights, said on Monday that he would sign the bill if itreached his desk. He urged the Assembly to reconsider the measurein light of new information suggesting that late-term abortions aremore common than had previously been thought.

The measure would specifically prohibit a procedure thatinvolves partially delivering a fetus feet first, suctioning outits brain and then collapsing its skull, allowing the body to movemore easily out of the birth canal. Under the bill, doctors caughtperforming the procedure would face up to four years in prison.

The bill's opponents contend that the bill is so vaguely writtenthat it would ban other types of abortions, including ones oftenused during the second trimester to protect the health of themother. As a result, they say, women would be forced to use lesssafe abortion procedures or to seek abortions in other states.

``It's unconstitutional,'' said Donna Lieberman, director of theReproductive Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union.``If it ever became law we would be in court in a flash.''

The bill passed the Senate by 40 to 19.

News for The Family --Tue Mar 11 06:42:40 EST 1997

NEWFANGLED GRANNIES:THEY''VE GONE FROM ROCKING CHAIRS TO THE

c. 1997 Kansas City Star

Ah, grandmothers.

Lavender sachets, a warm lap, gentle lullabies, gray hair in abun, spectacles.

Sorry, no. That species is nearly extinct.

These days grandkids are just as likely to receive an e-mailmessage from Grandma as a freshly baked sugar cookie.

``There really aren't too many grandmothers who are thattraditional anymore,'' said Sunie Levin of Prairie Village, Kan., agrandmother who writes books and lectures nationwide ongrandparenting. ``Not that they don't bake cookies—I do bakecookies. The kids love to bake cookies.''

At least the baked goods have been salvaged.

But grandmothers have changed.

``I don't think there's any question that there's been almostwhat I would call a disintegration of some of the traditionalroles, traditional values that offered children a safe andnurturing place,'' said Tom Flanagan, behavioral health servicesadministrator for Long Term Care Physicians in Kansas City, whichprovides counseling for older patients.

In years past ``grandparents often acted as mentor figures forthe children, especially when you take a look at the femalechildren and their relationship with their grandmothers.''

Nowadays grandmothers sometimes live far away from families.Practically gone is the live-in granny who nurtured, comforted,advised.

``We have this idea in the United States that you want to beindependent, and financial security allows grandparents to liveapart from the family,'' said Deborah Smith, assistant professor ofsociology and director of family studies at University ofMissouri-Kansas City.

``Families don't have grandparents living with them mainlybecause of government subsidies. We have decreased the level ofpoverty for the elderly significantly since the 1960s.

``It makes sense that you'd bake cookies for your grandchildrenif you're relying on your children to take you into their house.But if you don't have that, you don't have to `earn your keep.' ''

But Frances Lowe of Raytown, Mo., information assistant for theAmerican Association of Retired Persons' Kansas//Missouri office,misses that extended family. She recalls her grandmother withfondness.

``Her name was Hester Nott, and she lived with my parents whileI was growing up in California, Mo.,'' Lowe reminisced. ``Iremember we sat on her lap and she sang to us and told usstories.''

Like other women, Lowe regrets not having that experience withher own grandchildren and great-granddaughter.

``I've not had that opportunity because they haven't livedclose,'' she said. ``Our son is a pilot and he has worked all overworld. Our granddaughter graduated from high school in thePhilippines.

``I have pictures of my grandchildren and see them once in awhile, but not very often,'' she added. ``I think it's sad, I don'tlike it. But times have changed and I guess you have to stay withthe times.''

And one especially painful part of staying with the times isdistance.

``Many times grandmothers are strangers to their grandkids whenthey live apart,'' Levin said. ``The grandkids miss out, too. Thereis a special nurturing that takes place because (grandmothers) areINTERNET, BUT ONE THING REMAINS CONSTANT: THEIR LOVE@<^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@ By DRU SEFTONc. 1997 Kansas City Star

c. 1997 Kansas City Star

(they give is love unconditionally.'')

Long-distance grandmothers are working to adapt.

Levin addresses the issue in her book, You and YourGrandchildren: Special Ways to Keep in Touch (Price Stern Sloan).She puts her tips into practice (see accompanying box) with hernine grandchildren—a 10th is on the way.

``My kids are all away, except for one daughter in Kansas,''Levin said. ``We have kids outside Chicago, in Connecticut. All areon-line. The older grandchildren, from about 4 or 5 on up,communicate with us practically every other day by e-mail. So weknow what's going on, we know when they've won a game in soccer orare doing something in a play, so we can be a part of theirlives.'' The family also has chat rooms on the World Wide Web tocarry on live conversations.

That dedication doesn't surprise Smith of UMKC. ``There is noevidence to suggest any emotional ties have weakened'' betweengrandmothers and grandchildren over distances, she said.

Some grandmothers are still lucky enough to have a moreold-fashioned, traditional relationship with their grandchildren.Like Rosemary Hoover of Independence, Mo.

Her three grandchildren—Shelby, 7, Drake, 5, and GunnarDuckworth, 2—live about a mile from her. Drake and Gunnar spendnearly every Wednesday with Grandma.

``We usually have some kind of project,'' Hoover said. ``Thefirst thing they always ask is, `Grandma, what's our surprise? Whatdo you have for us today?'

``We do a lot of reading, I usually try to have an interestingvideotape or two. Sometimes we just play games.''

It means a lot to Hoover that she is a big part of their lives,``and they are of mine.''

The more nontraditional grandmothers have developed, well,nontraditional ways to stay involved with grandchildren. ForBarbara BanHook, who lives at John Knox Village, a retirementcommunity outside Kansas City, that means wielding a paintbrush.

``Recently I've been helping one grandchild paint and rebuild ahouse at Lake Lotawana,'' she said.

Actually BanHook's grandchildren are probably lucky to catch upwith her. She's an avid skier, she teaches math and swimming, playsbridge, walks regularly, is mastering her computer, taking astorytelling course, she's a member of Toastmasters—oh, and untila few years back she was a scuba-diving underwater photographer.

``I was real lucky to go snow skiing with most of thegrandchildren,'' she said. ``There was a period of about five yearsthat I got to ski with them quite frequently, and that was realexciting. I have a place in Vail.''

Even when she's in a more traditional grandmotherly role _gathering the family around her—she takes a modern approach. ``Ijust had 14 over for dinner last weekend,'' BanHook said. ``Youlearn how to do those things easily: I had it catered, and the kidssplit the dishes.''INTERNET, BUT ONE THING REMAINS CONSTANT: THEIR LOVE@<^(For use by New York Times News Service clients)@ By DRU SEFTONc. 1997 Kansas City Star

c. 1997 Kansas City Star

(Flanagan finds that spirit admirable.)

Today's grandmothers ``can pursue pieces of their dream thatthey had put aside because they had committed themselves to holdinga family and household together,'' he said. ``They are free topursue whatever interest they may have, whether that is education,artistic skills, travel. But they can still be nurturing peopletoward their grandchildren.

``They can do both. I think that's the one positive thing that'scome about as a result of some of these societal changes.''

So from crocheted slippers to ski boots, the evolution of thegrandmother continues.

``One thing that has remained a constant is the love,'' pointedout author Levin. ``No one pours their heart out more than agrandmother. That hasn't changed.''

For more information Books about today's grandmothers:

Funny, You Don't Look Like a Grandmother by Lois Wyse (CrownPublishers, $8). Humorous and poignant stories of contemporarygrandmothers.

The Girls With the Grandmother Faces: A Celebration of Life'sPotential for Those Over 55 by Frances Weaver (Hyperion, $16.95).Ideas and anecdotes for growing older. Also by Weaver: Where DoGrandmothers Come From? (And Where Do They Go?) (Midlife Musings,$10)

Thoroughly Modern Grandma: Quaint She Ain't by Louise Wollman(Peter Pauper Press, $7.99). A little humor book, just 62 pages.

Becoming a Grandmother: A Life Transition by Sheila Kitzinger(Scribner, $22). How women can find satisfaction in their specialrole. .MDNM/Long-distance loving Yes, today's grandmothers still can providethe nurturing that grandmothers of yesteryear did—even if theyare far away. Hints from grandparenting expert and author SunieLevin of Prairie Village, Kan.:

Send a sachet of your favorite perfume to your grandchild tofoster a scent memory. ``Smells are very important, particularly tothe young child,'' Levin said.

Be sure your portrait is in the nursery so your infantgrandchild grows up knowing you by sight.

Send recordings of your voice. If your grandchild is a baby,sing silly songs. As the child gets older, instead of buyingaudiotapes of books, buy the book and make your own tape.

``Then they can hear their grandparents reading,'' Levin said.``Our three daughters don't always have time for bedtime stories.That's where grandparents can come in. And it makes children feelvery special to listen to a story read by their grandparents.''.MDNM/Everybody's grandmothers Television reflects the ways grandmothershave changed through the years.

1962: ``Granny'' in ``The Beverly Hillbillies'': Yes, she had aname—Daisy Moses—and was played by Irene Ryan. A crotchety,cantankerous old woman who spent most of her time plotting to finda husband for her granddaughter, Elly May.

1972: ``Grandma'' Walton in ``The Waltons'': Esther Walton,played by Ellen Corby. A gray-haired, strong-willed, frail woman,cared for by her son and his large clan on Walton's Mountain.

1984: Mona Robinson in ``Who's the Boss?'': Played by KatherineHelmond. A razor-witted redhead who helped her daughter open anadvertising agency while amusing her grandkids with her manyromantic exploits.

1997: ``Nana'' on ``Suddenly Susan'': Played by Barbara Barrie.When Susan Keane (Brooke Shields) dumps her rich fiance, her hipgrandmother helps her make the transition to a new life in SanFrancisco.