
          Aborted Rights in Arkansas
          By Ledbetter, BrownieBrownie Ledbetter
          Vol. 10, No. 6, 1988, pp. 1, 3
          
          In the November elections, Arkansas voters--by a 52 to 48 percent
margin--moved the abortion debate to a new level. The issue in
Arkansas is no longer whether a woman has the right to have an
abortion, but whether she has the right not to have a child.
          Under the guise of a constitutional referendum to restrict state
funding for abortions, Arkansas voters have approved a measure that in
theory requires the state to force women to complete all pregnancies,
even in cases of rape or incest.
          In the words of some of the proponents of the three-part
referendum, rape may indeed be a traumatic experience, but rape or
incest victims should deliver and raise any children that might
result.
          The Arkansas referendum was the third attempt in six years to
eliminate all possibility of abortion (a 1984 "Unborn Child Amendment"
was removed from the ballot by the state's supreme court on the
grounds that the popular name was misleading). In 1988, pro-life
forces collected enough petition signatures to have the issue again
placed on the ballot, described as an amendment to restrict abortion
funding.
          The first section of the amendment prohibits public funding of
abortions except to "save the life of the mother." The second section
calls for the state to "protect the life of every unborn child from
conception until birth to the extent permitted by the federal
constitution." And, the third section declared that contraceptives
would not be affected nor would the state be required to appropriate
any funds.
          Arkansas does not have public funding of abortions, but most voters
were unaware 

of that. Pro-amendment radio ads implied that the issue
was whether voters would rather see their tax money go for roads and
education or for abortions. In newspaper interviews, some proponents
claimed that the amendment would have no effect unless, the
U.S. Supreme_Court reverses Roe v. Wade, the 1973
decision protecting reproductive choice on the basis of a woman's
right to privacy. Throughout the campaign proponents claimed the
amendment would have no effect on birth control.
          Reproductive health advocates opposed the amendment primarily on
the issue of forcing rape and incest victims to complete their
pregnancies, and on the issue of government interference in family
decisions about such incidents. Opponents aired television ads
pointing out that there is no public funding of abortions in Arkansas
and demonstrating the potential effect the amendment could have on a
rape victim.
          However, opponents' concerns about the amendment were even
broader. The amendment was opposed for many reasons, most of them
difficult to communicate in a culture where reproductive health issues
are rarely discussed and where sexuality education is taught in only a
few of the state's 330 school districts.
          Protection of a woman's private choice about her reproductive life
is a major concern as is protection of all forms of birth
control. This is particularly significant in Arkansas, which has the
second highest teenage birth rate in the nation. Right-to-life
advocates have long opposed birth control and now seek to restrict the
term "contraceptive" to forms of birth control that are effective
prior to conception; all other contraceptives, in their view, are
"abortifacients," and are therefore no different from abortions.
          Opponents of the amendment saw it as yet another attempt to outlaw
many forms of birth control including intrauterine devices and many of
the medically safer birth control pills that are effective after
fertilization. The "morning after" pill, commonly used for rape
victims, was an intended target of the amendment, but the Arkansas
Governor's Task Force on Rape has already requested and received an
opinion from the state attorney general which declares--for the
moment--that the "morning after" pill can continue to be used.
          Advocates of such legislation have attempted in many state
legislatures and court cases to bestow "personhood," with accompanying
legal rights, to fetuses from the "moment of conception." The legal
ramifications are of great concern to those who work in reproductive
health_care, not to mention in other areas of the law such as
decedents statutes and statutes that could affect working conditions
for women of fertile age.
          Ironically, in-vitro fertilization, a procedure which allows some
infertile couples to have a child, is clearly outlawed by the language
of the amendment since "conception" takes place outside the woman's
body, in a laboratory. The legal mandate of protecting a fetus from
"conception until birth" rules out such procedures because there can
be no practical way of insuring that all ovum fertilized in the
laboratory can be placed in a woman's uterus to be "protected" and
born.
          Other medical procedures such as amniocentesis, research that
enables advances for infertile couples, and potential cures for
Alzheimers disease, can tee prohibited by this language.
          Of particular concern is the fact that the first amendment section
prohibiting public (Medicaid) funding of abortions penalizes
low-income women. In addition, the language in this amendment is more
restrictive than the federal prohibition on Medicaid funding of
abortions. The only allowable exception in the Arkansas amendment is
"to save the life of the mother" while the exception in the federal
statute is in "life-threatening" situations. Many doctors have pointed
out that they can prescribe effective procedures for low-income
pregnant women whose progressive diseases would threaten their lives,
but under the new language, the doctors feel they would have to let a
patient's condition degenerate to the point that it could be legally
proven the patient would die without an abortion.
          No doctor can pick an absolute point in time at which a person will
die. Understandably, doctors are also worried about their medical
liability in such situations.
          
            Brownie Ledbetter is vice president of public affairs for
Planned Parenthood in Arkansas. She is also a member of the Southern
Regional Council.
          
        
