Perhaps the most damning restrictions, however, are those that prevent poor women from getting abortions. Dozens of legislators who proudly present themselves as pro-choice oppose government funding for abortions. It's fine for middle-class women who can afford to pay, but poor women have no such rights. President Bush opposes public funding for abortions and opposes giving aid to any group that performs or promotes abortions. He has expressed no such qualms about restricting funds to those advocating against abortion.
Many countries give women more control than the United States.
For eight years, President Clinton blocked Congress from further restricting women's rights. In a climate like the one we're entering, the simple right to reproductive choice affirmed in Roe v. Wade looks startlingly inadequate. What matters, and is retreating rapidly out of reach, is the access necessary to exercise that right. Those who want to protect women's civil rights had best switch their focus from enshrining Roe v. Wade to the more practical concern of ensuring access to all women, regardless of age, race, nationality or socioeconomic status. If they don't, they may find Roe v. Wade just an empty promise.