Guest Opinion

Last summer, I had a fascinating conversation with my grandmother
about her memories of the Great Depression. She told me about a married
man in her small town who knocked up two women on the side; one woman
was kicked out of her parents’ house, and the other was rendered
permanently sterile by an illegal abortion.

A dismal economic situation notwithstanding, things have changed
considerably since the 1930s. If a scenario such as the one above were
to occur today, that first girl would be more likely to enjoy good
communication with her parents; the second would have access to a safe
and legal abortion.

But even now that abortion is legal, opponents of choice have
created so many restrictions that we’re starting to backslide toward
the bad old days of secrecy and hardship. While there is certainly less
stigma attached to teenage pregnancy, and most girls can talk openly
with their parents about issues such as abortion and adoption, there
are still too many girls who can’t approach their parents with news of
an unintended pregnancy. And regardless of age, any woman who lives in
one of the 87 percent of U.S. counties without abortion services will
face obstacles.

With the abortion omnibus bill signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer
and set to take effect on Sept. 30, abortion will be that much more
difficult to access in Arizona. Minors and low-income women will be
most affected.

Currently, a minor can obtain an abortion with the written consent
of a parent or guardian. Under the new law, however, that parental
consent must be notarized. The introduction of a third party into a
private family matter is an overt violation of a patient’s right to
privacy. Moreover, minors who don’t enjoy good family communication
will face added hurdles if they seek a judicial bypass, as the bill
introduces provisions that make that process more difficult.

Also beginning Sept. 30, a mandated 24-hour waiting period will
create additional burdens. Child care and time off work will need to be
arranged for two days instead of one, and women living in farther-flung
locations will be forced to travel longer distances and possibly secure
overnight lodging. Low-income women, who are more likely to have
difficulty making such arrangements, will be disproportionately
affected; they could face the loss of employment and other
obstacles.

Furthermore, advanced-practice clinicians will be prohibited from
performing abortions, contrary to the Arizona State Board of Nursing’s
position that trained nurse practitioners are suited to perform
first-trimester abortions. This could further limit access to the
procedure if physicians cannot be found to take their places.

Emotions run high on both sides of the debate. While abortion
opponents are celebrating a major victory with the abortion omnibus
bill’s passage, supporters of abortion rights will fight back, starting
at the grassroots level. The emergence of an underground network in
which private citizens come forward to offer women help with travel and
lodging would not be unexpected.

It would not be the first time in Arizona’s history that women
relied on underground networks for help accessing safe abortions. Many
people would be surprised to learn that in Tucson, clergymen played a
vital role in abortion rights before the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The
Clergy Counseling Service took advantage of clergy-confidentiality laws
to help Arizona women obtain abortion services in California, where the
procedure had been legal since 1967. Restrictions in place at the time
provoked the secrecy with which this counseling was carried out. The
simple act of sharing information and resources in order to help a
woman leave the state for a legal abortion could have gotten most
people in hot water, but clergy members and the women they counseled
were afforded confidentiality by law.

While this was certainly a valuable resource for Arizona women, it
was no substitute for the increased access that eventually became
available after 1973. Unfortunately, measures such as those introduced
by the abortion omnibus bill are taking a sledgehammer to the rights
granted by Roe v. Wade.

The paradox here is that any truly significant reduction in abortion
rates is going to come from strategies—such as medically accurate
sex education and access to contraception—championed by
abortion-rights advocates. These are the only methods that have been
proven to result in a substantial decline in abortion rates. The
abortion omnibus bill, however, does nothing to address the root causes
of unintended pregnancies.

This article appears in Sep 17-23, 2009.