"MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
        OR A SLIPPERY SLOPE?

        So what does it really matter in the grand scheme of things if we lose one, seldom used medical procedure for women?  Are we making "much ado about nothing"?

        We've all heard that comment along with: "The President was sent a bill that allowed this procedure to save a woman's life so you should be satisfied with that."

        We aren't satisfied and with good reason.

        We are also disgusted with the disinformation, outright lies and the way the media repeats them.  If that bill was signed by the President, the first doctor that used the procedure would be sued -- and no one would dare to use it again.  The anti-choice crowd has coffers full of money already to hire doctors who will testify in court that the woman in question would not have died.

        Right now the cost of medical treatment is sky-high because of the huge payments for malpractice insurance. Imagine how high these would go for an obstetrician-gynecologyst. How does one prove that a woman would have died without the procedure unless she died? We are told by the media that the A.M.A. is against this procedure, but the media stays mum on the fact that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology does NOT want it outlawed.

        Charles Dickens wrote, "The law is an ass."  If so, we can be sure that the political/religious fundamentalists, who are bent on restricting women's human rights, will mount that ass and ride roughshod over us.  Then, the dilation & extraction procedure would be eliminated for all cases, and that is just the first step in their overall goal which is to deny ALL types of birth control for women.  Clinton understands this and insists that not only should the procedure be used to save a woman's life, but also for her health.  A Caesarean section is not always an alternative (but more on that in another article.)

        A recent primary election in California produced a winning Republican anti-choice candidate to run against a pro-choice Democrat.  During the campaign, special interest ads by Gary Bower and his Storm Troopers (euphemistically called "Family Research Council") were said to have influenced this primary.  All news media carried these ads free to the rest of the country and they are a sign of the disinformation to come. [liznote]

        The ads are chock full of the usual "scare and misrepresent tactics."  One starts out by showing a several-weeks-old live baby. Thereafter, the inference is, that the procedure, which they call P.B.A. (we won't energize their terminology) to inflame emotions, would kill the baby shown.

        Abortion Clinics OnlineIt would not be a pretty picture, but if they are going to condemn this procedure they should show one or more of the feti (fetuses) that a doctor decided should be extracted FOR THE HEALTH OF HER/HIS WOMAN PATIENT.  Let them portray the monstrosities of an embryo gone wrong; an accident of nature with a head the size of a basketball, for example.  Shouldn't we demand truth in advertising?

        We desperately need doctors to come forward and critique these ads but we understand why they dare not.  Any health professional, who appears in the media, is targeted -- her/his practice, patients, family and self are subjected to terrorists' actions.

        The meeting of the R.N.C. at Palm Springs last week sure let us know where this party stands.  Did you notice how the "debate" was solely about "infanticide," while nothing was said about "women," about "patients," about "human rights?"  However, they were clear and united about one thing: "say anything, do anything to get elected so we can override the President's veto."

        This is just the first step as they are pledged to continue to deny women the reproductive care of their choice -- a constitutional right.  This issue IS a slippery slope.  We must all contact others and spread the word through e-mail, the Web, letters-to-the-editor and any other means available, since the media is not interested in researching the facts and will not be until women start dying.  [liznote]

        One of the problems we have is that the anti-choice groups have controlled, and are controlling, the language and the media uses their language.  We must change this by entering into the debate using the correct terminology.

        While it is true that public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans are against "P.B.A.," if the question is, "Should a woman have the right to choose to have an abortion," the majority gives a resounding yes UNLESS the poll question adds, "for any reason."

        We must get the correct language back into this debate and frame the issue from our prospective -- women's human rights.  Now the issue is firmly framed as religious women (baby/child protectors) versus f-word-ists (baby/child killers) by the media.

        We need more Senators and Representatives like Republican Senator Snowe of Maine who bravely stood up for our President's veto and told the Senators, "This is for women and their doctors to decide, not government, and certainly not the Senate."

        Twanda@ConnRiver.net

        1998-002

        Copyright 1998 Renee T. Louise and Ruth M. Sprague, Ph.D. These articles may be republished for noncommercial use only, provided that they are copied intact, and that this copyright notice is attached. Address all queries to: twanda@ConnRiver.net.

        G e n d e r G a p p e r s   T M   

        [liznote: for more information on some of the politicking involved, see the People for the American Way website. Also see generally, the Abortion Online pages. For links to women's resources and organizations online, see the liz library Research Room Women's Resources ; and here, for a media contact list and other online media information.]