Abortion-rights pioneer Edelin alarmed by threats to Roe

Dr. Ken Edelin nearly went to jail for performing a legal abortion.

In October 1973, just months after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, Edelin performed an abortion on a 17-year-old girl who had come with her mother to request the procedure at the Boston hospital where Edelin worked as an obstetrician/gynecologist. Both women signed consent forms.

Two months later, the local prosecutor, a member of the Knights of Columbus and the leader of its right-to-life committee, subpoenaed the private medical records of 88 women who had come to Edelin’s hospital for abortions. Edelin himself was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, which chose to indict him for manslaughter. An African-American, he was tried before a jury of 16 people – all of them white, 13 of them men, 11 of them Catholic. They voted to convict him.

Continued -Edelin, facing 20 years in prison and the loss of his medical license, immediately appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The court overthrew his conviction and entered its own verdict of not guilty, an unusual move that ensured the prosecutor could not come after him again.

Edelin went on to become a national activist and spokesman for reproductive rights, chairing the board of Planned Parenthood and, recently, publishing “Broken Justice,” a book about his experiences with the Boston case.

Edelin spoke with Michigan Messenger this week about the continuing challenges women face in the battle to preserve their reproductive rights.

Q: What do you see as the greatest threat today to women’s reproductive rights?

A: The upcoming election. I think this is a crucial election as it relates to reproductive choice. [Both Democratic candidates,Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, are pro-choice; Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has consistently voted against women's reproductive rights.] The Supreme Court has been tilted by the current administration toward those who are not fully supportive of Roe v. Wade. I think the federal abortion ban they upheld a year ago [that outlawed medical procedures often used in late-term abortions] is evidence of that. I think that over the next four to eight years there are going to be two and probably three justices who need to be replaced. Unfortunately, I think they’re the justices who have consistently supported women’s right to choose on the Supreme Court.

Q: Why has the anti-choice fringe been so successful in promoting its agenda, with things like spousal notification, waiting periods and bans on late-term abortions?

A: Because I think the vast majority of Americans who are pro-choice have lost focus and have not kept their eye on the ball so that elections, both on the state level and national level, have been waged and won on other kinds of issues. In the last two weeks I’ve visited Michigan, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, and all those states have legislators that have been trying to pass bills that really do put a burden on women who are trying to exercise their reproductive rights, whether it’s bills that require ultrasounds, or bills that require waiting periods, or in Michigan where there’s an attempt to reproduce the federal abortion ban on the state level. We, the pro-choice majority, are not as focused on this issue as those that are anti-choice. Those that are opposed to women’s right to choose really become very threatening to legislators to make sure their view is heard and carries the day. We tend to be much more forgiving, much more trusting, but they’re very focused. Bush’s appointments of [Supreme Court Justices John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito were really a payback to the conservative wing of the Republican Party, the anti-choice wing.

Q: Where are the greatest opportunities for the pro-choice community to press its agenda of support for reproductive rights and access to contraception and sex education?

A: I think the most immediate opportunity is in the federal elections coming up in November. If we lose this presidential election, if we elect an anti-choice president and he is able to make two or three more appointments to the Supreme Court, then we’re not talking about a temporary setback, we’re talking about a setback that’s going to last several generations of women. It’s scary that so much is depending on this next election, but it is and people need to wake up to that.

Q: What do you make of the situation here in Michigan — a Democratic leader helping Right to Life to push a bill on late-term abortion?

A: I think your state points up what the truth of the matter is, which is that just because someone is a Democrat or Republican doesn’t make them pro-choice, it doesn’t make them in favor of a woman’s right to choose. We’ve got to look beyond party affiliation and party labels at what a candidate believes in. You’re not unique, unfortunately. I was just in Rhode Island, and as they like to describe themselves, they’re a solidly blue state. But the Legislature is very anti-choice, even though the people don’t want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

Q: You’ve said that the Supreme Court decision a year ago upholding the federal abortion ban opens the door to bans on all abortion procedures. Can you explain why?

A: If you read the decision that they handed down, you’ll see a couple of things which should be alarming. One of the things they talk about in both the law and the decision is so-called post-abortion syndrome women are supposedly suffering from, where they become depressed. There is nowhere in the medical literature where women are suffering from a post-abortion syndrome. It just doesn’t exist. But they repeat it as though it’s fact, as though if they say it often enough it’s going to become true. But it’s not.

No. 2, if you look at the description of the procedure in the ban, it could be language used to describe any abortion procedure, at even eight weeks or 12 weeks. If you’re opposed to a woman’s right to choose those descriptors apply to any abortion procedure.

Q: You’ve said some have told you your story is pass