New Jersey Jewish News
MetroWest Feature
Pro-choice activist sees ‘chilling effect’ on abortion providers
In a speech at a Morristown synagogue, the former executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New Jersey bemoaned the new balance of power on the Supreme Court and pending legislation that will have a “chilling effect” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.
Nevertheless, Laurie Lowenstein said, for the foreseeable future, New Jersey will remain a pro-choice state.
Speaking before 100 people at Temple B’nai Or on May 7, Lowenstein addressed how abortion rights would fare under the current Supreme Court, both nationally and in New Jersey.
Lowenstein’s remarks were preceded by Rabbi Donald Rossoff of B’nai Or, who provided a Jewish context for abortion.
“Judaism is not pro-choice. Judaism is not pro-life. Judaism is pro-mother,” Rossoff said. He cited incidences where
abortion is “mandated” — when the fetus poses a threat to the life of the mother and perhaps to her mental health as well. “In other words, the mother comes first, and her needs and the needs of her family are what the rabbis would take into consideration when making a judgment.”
He added that Reform Judaism has taken a decisive pro-choice stance and “has been a very, very strong advocate for women’s choice. Our belief is that every person should have the right to follow her own religious convictions when making this very, very important decision, which is the primary reason why at least the Reform view has been that the government should stay out of it to the extent that it can.
“We are…prayerfully pro-choice,” he added.
Lowenstein, who left NARAL recently and spoke on May 7 for the first time as a civilian, is, as she put it, between jobs. She presented what she called a “good news, bad news” scenario. Focusing on the replacement of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist with Justice John Roberts, she said, “This was an ‘anti’ for an ‘anti.’ It didn’t change the nature of the court at all, although Roberts promises to be very much an advocate as far as squelching personal rights and freedoms [goes].”
With regard to Justice Samuel Alito, however, who replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, she was less temperate. “Alito…is about as anti-choice as you can get,” she said. “You mustn’t believe or feel comforted by anything he said during his confirmation hearings about respecting precedent. If he has a chance to overturn Roe [v. Wade], you can bet he’s going to go ahead and do it.”
Lowenstein also considered that the court’s swing vote now belongs to Justice Anthony Kennedy. “His position is much harder to the right than O’Connor’s was,” said Lowenstein. And while she said she “couldn’t always count on [O’Connor] to do the pro-choice or pro-woman or pro-family thing, Kennedy is even less reliable in that role.”
She noted that Kennedy voted for the late-term, or partial-birth, abortion ban that came before the Supreme Court in 2000. (The Supreme Court struck down that ban as unconstitutional in its five-four ruling on the grounds that it offered no exception to protect a woman’s health.) “That bill was designed to be a smokescreen for restrictions to access to abortion. And Kennedy voted in favor of that bill. He likes that bill,” Lowenstein said. “I think it’s reasonably safe to assume that he’s going to like the bill that is coming up that no longer protects a woman’s health when she is considering terminating a pregnancy.”
A 2003 Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion will be considered this spring by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart. Lowenstein said it includes language that “is deliberately vague so that what they call this so-called partial-birth abortion, which they claim represents a specific procedure, is described in such a way that it describes earlier abortion procedures as well. They are not saying that they want to ban specific abortion procedures earlier in pregnancy, but they don’t have to as long as this language is accepted.”
What she most fears is that such a bill would have a chilling effect on abortion providers. “What it will do is undermine every doctor’s ability to provide reproductive health care for women,” she said.
But in considering the implications for New Jersey, she said, “We have finally gotten to the good news. We are extremely lucky to live in a state that prides itself on being one of the most progressive in the country. We have consistently supported the rights of young people and poor people and families to protect their reproductive freedom. We have some of the most progressive laws.”
As an example, Lowenstein cited laws that require Medicaid to pay for abortions and those supporting the right of young women to decide on their own whether or not to continue with a pregnancy without consulting with their parents. In particular, she referred to two pieces of legislation passed last year. The first requires emergency rooms to provide information about emergency contraception as well as such contraception to victims of sexual assault. The second mandates that employers who provide health insurance must ensure that their policies cover prescription birth control.
In response to audience queries, Lowenstein suggested people work with school boards to ensure their districts are not using textbooks featuring abstinence-only curricula that satisfy requirements of restrictive states like Texas.
Most of those in the audience were beyond child-bearing age, an irony that elicited discussion toward the end of the program. Lowenstein emphasized that the issue affects all members of society. “The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any Western industrialized nation because we are not speaking to teens before their junior year of high school, when they have already made their decisions,” she said.
The talk was sponsored by the West Morris and Essex County sections of National Council of Jewish Women, Temple B’nai Or, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the League of Women Voters of the Morristown Area, the Morris County chapter of the National Organization for Women, and the Morristown Unitarian Fellowship Social Responsibilities Committee.
Comment | |
All rights reserved