Abortion Debate

IF THE PROCEDURE known as "partial-birth abortion" has turned into a dream-come-true opportunity for opponents of legalized abortion to make inroads among traditional pro-choice advocates, the drug known as RU-486 could represent the movement's nightmare. By providing a non-surgical way to end a pregnancy, the drug, which the Food and Drug Administration has said it will approve soon, removes some of the pro-life movement's best tools for appealing to public opinion.It is easy to find out which hospitals or clinics perform surgical abortions and target them for the public protests that make many women shy away from seeking out these services.

Both sides in the bitter abortion debate, which has played out in Pennsylvania as intensely as anywhere, have been using taxpayer money to advance their causes.On one side, an abortion-rights legislator -- Democratic Rep. Karen Ritter -- has distributed $500,000 from the state's general fund to provide family-planning services, including birth control, around the state -- services that the state legislature expressly voted not to provide.Anti-abortion forces find this outrageous."We object to our tax dollars being funneled into organizations like Planned Parenthood that are in the forefront of the abortion-rights movement," said Mary Beliveau, legislative coordinator of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation.

An old fight resurfaced yesterday in Annapolis as opposing sides of the abortion debate squared off on a proposal to toughen the state's parental notification law for minors. The bill by Del. Carmen Amedori, a Carroll County Republican, would change current law so that only a judge - not a doctor, as is now allowed - could permit girls to bypass the state's parental notification requirement. "If my kid goes in for oral surgery, I have to be notified," Amedori said as she prepared to testify before the House Health and Government Operations committee hearing on the bill.

My 16-year career in two legislatures (eight in the Maryland General Assembly and eight in Congress) included many debates on the most divisive issues of our time: Capital punishment, affirmative action, war and peace, impeachment, entitlement reform and abortion rights were guaranteed to generate partisan strife and emotional debate. No issue generated more emotion than a woman's right to choose. Intense, emotional debates produced a unique lexicon, as legislators debated the merits and implications of "judicial bypass," "parental consent," "partial birth" and the many complexities attendant to Medicaid (taxpayer)

It was the pictures and riveting testimony that convinced a Philadelphia jury that abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was guilty of murdering three infants born alive following botched late-term abortions and also guilty of the involuntary manslaughter of Karnamaya Mongar, who overdosed on Demerol during an abortion at Dr. Gosnell's clinic. How ironic that the Gosnell decision was delivered the day after Mother's Day. The two-month trial has reignited the abortion debate. But while many states have managed to impose some restrictions on abortion clinics, establish informed consent laws, and in some cases require a woman to view a sonogram before aborting an unborn child, abortion on demand for almost any reason and at most stages of pregnancy remains legal in every state.

BOSTON -- This is not going away. As one who has watched the quest for common ground in the abortion debate give way time and again to a scorched-earth policy, I can promise you that.Last week the Senate upheld the president's veto of a bill banning what opponents label "partial-birth abortions." But this week, political ads are being readied for the congressional campaigns and the questions honed for the presidential debates.Voters this fall will see drawings of perfect babies coming down birth canals only to be snuffed out by murderous doctors.

The Germantown clinic featured in today's story, “ Maryland abortion protest target takes fight to protesters ,” has been a focal point of the abortion debate over the past few years. Dr. LeRoy Carhartarrived there in late 2010. That year, Nebraska had banned abortions after 20 weeks. Carhart, who performs both early- and late-term abortions, still lives in Nebraska and travels to Maryland to work at the Germantown clinic. Michael Martelli, director of the Maryland Coalition for Life, said Carhart's arrival in Maryland was a “catalyst for the … rising up and unity” of many groups that oppose abortion.

Schaefer remains quiet on abortionGov. William Donald Schaefer was mum on abortion during last year's General Assembly session and, so far, he hasn't said much about the issue this year.Since he released an abortion-rights statement before the November election, Schaefer generally has been tight-lipped when asked how he stands on a bill that would require parental involvement in a teen-ager's decision to have an abortion. That particular proposal is likely to be the most controversial issue in the abortion debate this year.

Sorting out the issues of trust and characterThere has been much discussion and finger-pointing this election year about candidate credibility.The accusations include Bill Clinton's "waffling," George Bush's involvement in Irangate, Iraqgate and BNLgate and Ross Perot's penchant for investigating everybody.Unfortunately the relative seriousness of these charges has been totally ignored.Clinton's response to questions about pot-smoking and draft-dodging were not direct, complete or as honest as the public expects.

Anyone who expected the election of a pro-choice administration to resolve the abortion debate got a strong dose of reality therapy last week when the House voted to continue the Hyde Amendment banning the use of federal dollars for Medicaid abortions.For 16 years, the federal government has perpetrated a two-tier standard, telling women they can have an abortion only if they are not poor enough to require taxpayer assistance. But casting this as a taxpayer issue is misleading. The employer-provided insurance policies that pay for most abortions receive federal tax subsidies.