LWVMA 

Where We Stand 

Content:

Introduction

Program in Brief

Government

Natural Resources

Social Policy

LWVMA 

WHERE WE STAND

Social Policy: Reproductive Choices

Goal:
Freedom of individuals to make informed reproductive decisions based on their own convictions and beliefs. (1972)

The League supports:

• emphasis on preventive measures to avoid unwanted pregnancies
• sex education in the schools and community
• access to family planning information, services and devices to people who want them
• wide distribution of information about contraception and sterilization
• treating abortion as a medical procedure to be decided upon by a woman and her physician
• public funding for birth control and abortion services for the poor
• research on birth control methods

The League opposes:

• restrictive birth control and abortion laws

League action

Sex education
The League supports action to initiate or expand programs in schools and communities throughout the state. The League opposes efforts to enact state legislation to prohibit the teaching of sex education in public schools or to prohibit the dissemination of contraceptive information or information about abortion.

Family planning
LWVMA believes participation in family planning programs should be voluntary. The League opposes efforts by the legislature to restrict access to any forms of family planning. Many family planning programs in Massachusetts have depended on federal funding. Shifts from categorical funding to the use of other federal programs, such as Medicaid and Title X, and general budget constraints at the federal and state levels, require continued League support to ensure programs adequate to meet the needs of Massachusetts residents.

The League supports wide distribution of information about contraception and sterilization. The League has supported action to increase the availability of family planning services and information by supporting bills to require city and town clerks to offer such information to couples applying for marriage licenses. The League has opposed bills that would deny state funds to family planning providers if they also provide abortion services.

Marital status, age
In 1972, while the League study on birth control and abortion was in process, the Supreme Court invalidated the Massachusetts statute prohibiting distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. In an earlier ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had affirmed that first amendment rights covered exhibiting contraceptives. The cumulative effect of the state and federal decisions was to invalidate the Massachusetts birth control laws. The League position supports not only the right of contraceptive care for unmarried persons but also the right of contraceptive care to minors without parental consent.

Freedom of choice in abortion
Because members agreed that the law should permit the exercise of freedom of choice in keeping with diverse in-dividual beliefs, the League supports a law that deals with abortion as a private decision between the woman and her doctor. The League supports repeal of restrictive laws and opposes new legislation that would seek further restrictions.

In 1974, the LWVMA joined an amicus brief on behalf of a wife in Doe v. Doe, in which the SJC ruled that a husband does not have the right to interfere with his wife's abortion.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the restrictive abortion laws of two states (Roe v. Wade, Texas, and Doe v. Bolton, Georgia). The decision was broad in character and affected the laws of virtually every state, including Massachusetts. According to the court's ruling, states may not restrict a woman's right to abortion until the fetus is viable. To ensure the protection of maternal health, states are permitted to regulate the conditions under which abortion may be performed and states may act to preserve an interest in the potential life of the fetus by limiting access to abortion in the final months of gestation.

LWVMA filed an amicus brief in Dr. Kenneth Edelin's appeal of his conviction on manslaughter charges arising from the performance of a legal abortion at Boston City Hospital. Edelin's conviction was overturned by the SJC.

Nationwide efforts to enact an anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution began soon after the announcement of the 1973 Supreme Court decision. The League opposes attempts by the legislature to pass a resolution calling on Congress to enact a "human life" or other anti-choice amendments to the Constitution or to call a federal Constitutional Convention to consider a fetal rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The League cites denial of freedom of choice that such an amendment would represent.

Since 1982, the League has opposed anti-choice, anti-abortion amendments to the state constitution. The proposed amendments have been of two types: the "human life" type, which declares that life begins at the moment of conception, and a "denial of rights," which would allow the legislature to regulate or prohibit abortion, public or private funding of abortion, or facilities and services for abortion. The League, in the Massachusetts Coalition for Choice, has opposed these proposals in the legislature. As a member of the coalition steering committee, the League helped defeat an anti-choice amendment on the 1986 state ballot.

In 1989, LWVUS joined an amicus brief in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. The Supreme Court, in holding provisions of the Missouri abortion statute constitutional, could greatly reduce federal constitutional protection for women's right to choose abortion. Webster permits viability testing and the right to restrict abortions in any way linked to public monies including the use of buildings on land leased by a government to a private facility. In the wake of the Webster decision, the Massachusetts Coalition for Choice introduced a pro-choice state constitutional amendment by citizen initiative. LWVMA, as a member of the Coalition for Choice, joined in collecting twice the required number of signatures for the amendment, which needs a 25 percent vote by two successively elected legislatures before going to the public on the ballot.

A potential new threat to women's right to abortion is the fetal rights or fetal endangerment movement. The danger comes if the government is allowed to regulate a pregnant woman's life. LWVMA joined an amicus on behalf of a woman who was charged with vehicular homicide of her own fetus as a result of a drunk-driving accident (Commonwealth of Mass. v. Levy, 1989). The case was dropped.

During the fall of 1988, Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group, physically blockaded abortion clinics and harassed both patients and staff. LWVMA was one of the plaintiffs in a case against Operation Rescue charging it with violations under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and other claims. (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, LWVMA v. Operation Rescue, 1989) The Supreme Judicial Court agreed that blockades and harassment are not protected free speech under the first amendment and upheld an injunction against these activities.

Medical personnel
The League supports legislation to allow freedom of choice for medical personnel who do not wish to perform abortions against their convictions.

Counseling
The League believes it is an important adjunct to the medical procedure to assure that the woman who seeks an abortion is aware of the alternatives available to her, including supportive services to help her continue the pregnancy. Counseling should also be provided following the abortion, should she and her physician decide upon that alternative. The League has opposed "informed consent" bills that require a 24-hour wait before an abortion is performed and that the patient be told in detail about the development of the fetus and risks of abortion, as not providing balanced counseling and as intended to add costly and harassing requirements.

The Victim's Compensation Statute excludes counseling and services for abortion, and full-term delivery for victims of rape who become pregnant. LWVMA has supported legislative bills to remove this discriminatory exclusion.

Location
The League has opposed attempts of abortion opponents to limit access and increase cost by restricting abortions to hospitals, rather than clinics, or restricting abortion clinics.

Minors
The League has supported the right of minors to obtain abortions without parental or judicial consent. Massachusetts was the first state to pass a parental consent law (1974). The U.S. Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional as written (Bellotti v. Baird, 1979). The new law, written to meet Supreme Court objections and effective 1981, requires an unmarried woman under 18 years of age to get consent of both parents or a court in order to obtain an abortion. LWVMA supports total repeal of this statute and is working to modify it to be less onerous by reducing the age to under 16 years and requiring only one parent's consent with the judicial bypass option.

Public funding
In June 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state has no constitutional obligation to provide Medicaid funding for abortions that are not medically required. The League, with others, succeeded (1977) in blocking attempts to stop Medicaid funding for abortions. The FY79 budget, however, passed over the governor's veto in 1978, prohibited the use of state funds for abortions either through Medicaid or through state employees' insurance, except in the case of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. In 1978 the U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction against rules enacted by the 1978 legislature. The court's ruling stated that Medicaid regulations should provide for abortions when "severe or long-lasting physical health damage to the mother would result." The 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Harris v. McRae) that the government can constitutionally refuse to pay for even medically necessary abortions for poor women required further League action in support of Medicaid-funded abortions.

The Massachusetts General Laws were amended in 1979 to prohibit the expenditure of any state funds to pay for abortions that were not necessary to prevent the death of the mother. Suit was brought to challenge the various restrictions to Medicaid funding. LWVMA supported that suit. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled (Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance, 1981) that the state constitution protects the right to choose whether or not to have a child and that "coercive funding restrictions" are unconstitutional. Thus, the state constitution has been judged to have stronger protections than the federal constitution. Although the same funding restrictions apply to all state employees and retirees and appear to fall under the rationale of the Moe decision, no test case has been brought. Employees have the option to add, at their own expense, a rider for coverage of "medically necessary" abortions. The League has opposed the prohibition of health insurance coverage of elective abortions except by special rider. League opposition to state anti-choice amendments is also based on protecting the right, in the state constitution, for public funding for abortion for poor women and for state employee health insurance.

Because the League supports a woman's decision to carry a pregnancy to term as well as her decision to have an abortion, it supported 1983 and 1984 legislation to extend AFDC and Emergency Assistance benefits to needy women in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. Eligibility had previously been limited to the third trimester.

Background

• 1970: LWVUS International Relations Development position allowed support by LWVUS for U.S. assistance for population planning programs for other nations.
• 1972: LWVMA announced its position regarding abortion, contraception, sex education and related issues.
• 1978: LWVUS board voted to expand its positions to include funding for abortions, citing the supportive services criteria in the LWVUS income assistance positions and the League's efforts to combat discriminatory practices affecting poor people.
• 1982: LWVUS convention delegates voted to ask local Leagues to concur with a statement that reflected the conclusions of a study that year by New Jersey and with the 1972 LWVMA consensus positions. The result was the position: The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that public policy in a pluralistic society must affirm the constitutional right of privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices.
• 1989-91: Reproductive rights were voted an LWVMA legislation and action priority.