.jpg)
All individuals should have access to the information and services they need to make informed decisions about their health. Restricting access is not only a violation of the fundamental principles on which our nation was founded, but in the case of medical care it can endanger a person’s health and sometimes their life.
Choice is about access, privacy and sensitive decisions being left to the judgment of a woman and her doctor not the government.
As we all know, since choice was recognized as a guaranteed right, there has been an ongoing effort to erode that right.
The so-called partial birth abortion ban, enacted in 2003, is a recent obstacle put in place at the federal level. In 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the law in Gonzales v. Carhart. Justice Ginsburg wrote that the Court's decision "cannot be understood as anything more than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by [the] Court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives." The recent Supreme Court appointees that helped bring about this decision certainly affirmed the notion that every vote in an election is an important vote.
Another obstacle to choice was mere inches from making the law books when the clock thankfully ran out on the 109th Congress and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (H.R. 785), a federal parental consent law, expired with it. As with all parental notification proposals, it glossed over the complexity of real people's lives and would have abandoned young women at a critical time.
It seems, however, that the pendulum is starting to swing the other direction. Since a change in the Congressional leadership in 2007, we have not seen the onslaught to restrict a woman’s right to choose. Many people may not realize that control of Congress is not just about what gets voted on in Congress but what legislation does not get a vote.
Furthermore, there is legislation that will help reduce abortions and protect a women’s right to choose such as the Prevention First Act (H.R. 819) and the Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 1964), both of which I am a cosponsor. H.R. 819 would increase funding for Title X, the federal family planning program and expand family planning services covered by Medicaid. In addition, it supports sex education programs by providing grants for such programs and ensuring that these programs are providing comprehensive, medically accurate, unbiased information.
On April 19, 2007, in response to the Court's decision in Gonzales, the Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.1964) was introduced in the House of Representatives. The measure codifies the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade by stating that a government may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
The strategy ahead for preserving the right to choose is a winning one despite set backs. We know the public overwhelming supports a woman’s right to choose. Combined with warding off legislative efforts to erode Roe; electing presidents that will nominate pro-choice judges; and increasing access to education and safe, quality health care, we can protect a right that has become a hallmark of our democracy.
