Meet Dr. Ken Edelin — Part Two

For more than 30 years, Kenneth Edelin, M.D., has been a champion of reproductive rights and an outspoken opponent of those who would try to restrict and impair a woman’s right to choose.  His forthcoming book, Broken Justice, details the era following the passage of Roe v. Wade, when he was indicted, tried, convicted, and ultimately exonerated of manslaughter for performing a safe, legal, second-trimester abortion.  Read more about the book and his experiences in Part One of this interview.

Here, plannedarenthood.org talks to Edelin about the future of reproductive rights, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the federal abortion ban.

The federal abortion ban has been a major setback for reproductive rights.  It also leaves a legal gray area for some abortion providers because the statutory definition of what is banned is not clear-cut.  Can you see a situation similar to yours happening today?

One of the strategies and tactics the anti-choice fanatics have used is intimidation. They have tried to intimidate providers of abortion services by threatening their lives and their families’ lives. They have picketed the homes of abortion providers. They used my case to intimidate other doctors with the threat of legal prosecution.

Congress passed and President Bush signed the federal abortion ban in 2003. Part of that law targets doctors by imposing severe penalties for any doctor who performs the types of abortion procedures outlawed by the law. The Supreme Court upheld the law this year as being constitutional. I remember the photograph of George Bush signing the bill into law, while surrounded by a bunch of conservative white men. Seeing them gathered there reminded me of those who pursued my indictment, trial, and conviction. The parallels are extraordinary.  The law came into being because an anti-choice Congress had the perfect storm — the perfect situation, the perfect set of circumstances, whereby they could pass a law and get it signed by George Bush.  It reminded me of the rabid anti-choice district attorney who came after me.

As they were writing the bill, Congress held hearings and received testimony from anti-choice “scientific experts” who presented flawed scientific studies — pages and pages of pseudo-science — to support this bill.  That’s exactly what happened at my trial. “Experts” from all over the country were brought in to testify against me.  Their testimony was scientifically and factually inaccurate.  My defense countered with some of the world’s greatest physicians and scientists, who also came to Boston to testify on my behalf.  But they spoke in front of a jury of lay people, none of whom had finished college.  We presented a scientific debate in front of an untrained audience — just like in Congress.  The Supreme Court justices repeated these inaccuracies when they upheld the federal abortion ban.

I read the opinion. Although I am not an attorney, I believe the court’s 5–4 decision is inviting challenges to other abortion procedures.  The language in the decision is clear to me.  They have opened it up for anti-choice challenges to all abortions.  Eventually, it could eviscerate Roe.

The parallels are eerily similar.  That’s why the book, even though it’s about an event that occurred more than 30 years ago, is appropriate for these times.

What is your sense of the future?  You once said there is a real potential to return to the horrors that were witnessed prior to Roe.

Not only did I read the Supreme Court decision, I listened very carefully to the confirmation hearings for Justices Alito and Roberts. There was a lot of discussion about respecting precedent. Their answers were along the lines of, “We are not inclined to overturn precedent because it would be a cataclysmic change for this country.”  But they have overturned several precedents already in this first term of the Roberts Court.

If you are rabidly anti-choice, you want cataclysmic change. To overturn Roe would be cataclysmic. But that’s what they want.  So am I pessimistic?  I think I’m being realistic.

What can we do to prevent the turning back of the clock on abortion?

That’s where I’m struggling. I see a situation that is very dire, very pessimistic. This year we celebrated the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. To be dramatic and to put a time limit on it, I don’t think Roe will survive another 16 years so that we can celebrate its 50th anniversary. Sixteen years could be only two presidential terms, a period of time and a set of circumstances in which the Supreme Court could have its conservative, anti-choice majority strengthened and entrenched.

What do we do? The Constitution says that when the public’s rights are being abridged, it is their duty to rise up and stop it.  That’s how we threw off the shackles of the English monarchy.

What does that mean in practical terms?  The solution is in politics.  We must convince the American public that the issue of women’s equality is inextricably tied to women’s ability to exercise choice and control over their reproductive lives.

Edelin’s book, Broken Justice, will be available in late August 2007.  For more information, see http://brokenjustice.com/.