Social Justice: January 2007 Archives

Speak Out California asked Incoming Chair of the Legislative Women's Caucus, Assemblymember Patty Berg, to share with us her thoughts on the significance of Roe v. Wade. Assemblymember Berg represents the first Assembly District. She is a long-time advocate for women's health and the author of last session's Compassionate Choice measure that would allow dying individuals to do so with respect and control over this most personal choice. She takes the gavel for her one year term from the current Chair,Senator Christine Kehoe at the end of this month.

As we contemplate the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it is worth
remembering that this landmark ruling is about so much more than
reproductive freedom. In a way, the mechanics of reproduction are the
least important part of what the ruling represents. The crucial thing to
remember, the thing worth celebrating, is the principle articulated in Roe is
that women do not need to seek permission or approval to exercise control
and freedom over their own bodies, and, thus, take control over their own
destinies.

For young women today, it may be hard to imagine why we needed a court
ruling to make this clear. And, really, in a way it is wonderful that
they may not instinctively understand the full import of this change. It is
wonderful because it means young women are growing up in a freer
and better nation than the one inhabited by their mothers and grandmothers.

I believe it is unfortunate and misguided when opponents talk about Roe v.
Wade as a pro-abortion ruling. They completely miss the reality that the
ruling represents a pro-woman ruling. And perhaps it's time that we
move beyond even that somewhat limited construct to appreciate Roe as a
pro-individual ruling. Clearly Roe stands for the proposition that certain
rights cannot be curtailed by the state.

As we are celebrating the universal truths inherent in this ruling, we
still have to protect the very specific details of it. We must always
resist any efforts that would turn back the clock and force women
to again take desperate measures when facing an unwanted pregnancy.
Thousands of women died during the era of illegal abortions and we cannot let
this become the reality of our country's policies ever again.
I, like many of you, will always defend Roe v. Wade
both for the specific rights it expresses, and the universal
rights of freedom and privacy on which it is based.

We must always ensure that women can make their personal choice and that
they have the resources needed to make that decision. At the same time,
we need sensible policies in place for women to protect against unwanted
pregnancy including increasing the availability
of contraception in our nation and the world. We must fully
fund family planning services and provide them for all women.

Young women, in particular, should also be educated about their bodies.
I helped develop a K-12 curriculum in Humboldt County to do this very
thing. Empowering young women to make the right choices is the most
powerful tool we can give them. And the most powerful message for women
and men should always be that every child be a wanted and planned for
child.

And that is the lasting effect of Roe v. Wade: empowerment of the
individual. And for that, I am so grateful to Roe v. Wade.

Assemblywoman Patty Berg
Incoming Chair of the Legislative Women's Caucus

This is the first of a two-part series on the critically important civil rights ruling that has allowed women to realize our right to freedom and privacy in our country. Because of the decision in Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22nd, 1973, women have been able to control when and with whom to bear a child. In today's article, we will focus primarily on the history of Roe and its erosion over the past 34 years, led by an ever-right turning Supreme Court, culminating in the Bush court that exists today.

Monday, January 22nd marks the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade which has been for generations of women our Emancipation Proclamation. Under the historic Supreme Court ruling in 1973 women now have a constitutionally protected right, under the umbrella of the rights of liberty and privacy, to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The Court said that the U.S. Constitution's right of privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy"(Roe v. Wade, 1973). To reach this conclusion, the court drew on a series of case law that established that the government does not have the right to interfere with personal decisions regarding birth-control, procreation and other aspects of marriage and family life.

Instead of ending the debate, however, this assertion and confirmation of women having the freedom and right to decide our reproductive destiny became the flash-point for a political movement that, hopefully, is losing its political influence. It is, of course, naive and foolish to think that Roe will no longer be threatened and is not at risk in the U.S. Supreme Court or various states in our country. To the contrary. With the spineless response of the United States Senate to the appointment of Samuel Alito (leaving John Roberts and his confirmation as the Chief Justice out of the equation just for purposes of discussion), we will see an already threatened Roe further undermined within the next few months or years---absent a miracle). Without so much as a public commitment to preserving Roe, Alito and the neo-conservative judges who have been trying to overturn Roe since their elevation to the highest court in the land---led by Anton Scalia with Clarence Thomas in tow-- may now have that opportunity. Of course, the Court won't admit it's intention to do just that, but after the Casey v. Pennsylvania decision in 1992, Roe is pretty much a shell of its former self. Under that ruling, numerous hurdles have been imposed on women, thus reducing accessibility to abortions, primarily for our neediest and most under-served women.

The big news this week is going to be the release of the Governor's health care plan. Ordinarily, giving the Governor a shot and seeing what he comes up with would be the right thing to do, but you read it here first: this is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

This is a complex topic, but from my perspective there are two simple principles that any health care plan has to adhere to to have any hope of success. One is easy, and one is difficult:

First, get employers out of the loop. This should be the easy one: there isn't a single employer in the United States that honestly wants to be in whatever business they are in AND in the health care provider business. This system barely made sense when it first started, and given the changes that have happened in the economy since then, it makes no sense whatsoever now.

There are two primary sources of political capital that are going to power reform in this area: the very high level of ambient citizen disgust, and - if someone makes the case to them - small and large businesses whose competetiveness is being harmed by the current system. Every last drop of political capital from both sources is going to be necessary to put the second and much more difficult principle into effect, which is:

Second, housebreak the insurance companies. They may need to be removed from the system entirely. It's possible that any for-profit entity where providing care is a cost subtracted from the bottom line is simply never going to successfully provide care.

But maybe they can. I can imagine a system where cleanly regulated insurance companies do add value, by helping contain costs both on the demand side (through promoting wellness) and on the supply side (by being a countervailing power to the service providers) And given the political reality of where we're at, making them go away completely isn't going to happen soon. So regulating them, giving the marketplace some basic ground rules like stopping the cherrypicking of healthy customers, would be a great start.

Why the Governor is structurally incapable of getting this right is on the flip...