Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:02:00 EDT
From:         TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject:      Freedom of \DDCC

This article was written by James J. Kilpatrick, a nationally syndicated
columnist who lives in Charleston, SC.

     The Senate may soon call up, and even pass, a bill that calls itself the
"Freedom of Choice Act of 1992."  Four dissenting senators call it the "Wash-
ington Knows Best Act of 1992."  I call it horsefeathers.
     After a long preamble, the bill would write this language into law:
     "A state may not restrict the freedom of a woman to choose whether or not
to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability.
     "A state may restrict the freedom of a woman to choose whether or not to
terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability unless such a termination is ne-
cessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.
     "A state may impose requirements on the performance of abortion proced-
ures if such requirements are medically necessary to protect the health of wo-
men undergoing such procedures."
     Where in the name of the Founding Fathers did Congress acquire the power
to adopt such a bill?  The answer given by the sponsors is that women who tra-
vel across a state line in order to obtain an abortion are engaged in inter-
state commerce.  Moreover, Congress has power under the 14th Amendment to
adopt appropriate legislation to prevent the states from abridging anyone's
"liberty."
     Such rationalizations insult the sapience of a high school senior.  The
sophistries trample upon the 10th Amendment, which declares that the powers
not delegated to the national government by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or
to the people.
     It is preposterous to assert that the Constitution has delegated power to
Congress to twist the Commerce Clause into such unrecognizable knots.  The
14th Amendment was intended to prevent the states from denying equal protec-
tion of the laws to the newly freed slaves.  To contend that the "Freedom of
Choice Axt" is appropriate legislation is to make a mockery of plain English.
Language, especially constitutional language, ought not to be so abused.
     The bill comes to the Senate floor accompanied by a report from the Labor
and Human Resources Committee.  In its inept and repetitious way, the report
compounds the insult to the chamber's intelligence.
     Without this bill, says the report, the states might impose serious re-
strictions upon women seeking an abortion.  There would be a "forced migration
of women" that would impose a "tremendous burden" upon the resources of states
that allow safe and legal abortions.
     Some states may prohibit the sale or use of certain commonly used contra-
ceptives, such as an IUD or the pill.  Women who use the pill and wish to
travel to states in which the pill is prohibited "would have to either discard
their contraceptive medications or have the devices removed prior to entering
such a state or risk violation of that state's anti-abortion law."
     The sponsors of this bill foresee much more.  Medical research and train-
ing programs would be severly inhibited in such states.  Medical schools and
teaching hospitals could not teach techniques of safe abortion.  State laws
restricting abortion would have a chilling effect on basic medical research.
     The committee is deeply concerned about the discriminatory effect that
restrictive state laws would have on poor women.  A 24-hour waiting period
might require them to spend two nights in a distant city.  Prolonged travel
could be required.  In Pennsylvania, by way of example, women who reside in
62 counties would have to travel "at least one hour" to obtain an abortion
from the nearest provider.  State restrictions would have "profound implica-
tions" for freedom of travel.  Women may lose education or employment opportu-
nities.  They could miss an opportunity to vote.  "Some may face criminal
prosecutions and incarceration."
     Well, horsefeathers!  These dire predictions and inflated forebodings are
so much hot air.  Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi rightly describes the con-
stitutional arguments as "strained and unconvincing."  The most elementary
principles of federalism protect the power of the states to legislate in the
field of abortion law.
     The Supreme Court on June 29 explicitly reaffirmed the states' authority
over abortions.  The issue for the moment is settled.  Nothing can be gained
by roiling the waters anew.

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU