No on One

QUESTION 1 ON TOMORROW'S BALLOT is a vaguely worded and dangerous attempt to restrict access to safe abortions in Massachusetts. Supporters of the proposed amendment to the state constitution claim that it would only threaten public funding for abortions. If passed, however, the amendment will have much broader consequences than right-to-lifers have been willing to publicize.

In addition to allowing the state legislature to end Medicaid-funded abortions, the proposal would allow private insurance companies to stop covering abortions as part of private health insurance. So even for women who can afford health insurance, abortions could be made much more difficult to obtain. The measure would also empower the state to license and to regulate abortion clinics, creating an opportunity for anti-abortion activists to harrass and obstruct their operations.

Almost 7000 Massachusetts women every year depend on Medicaid funding for abortions. Without this aid they would be left with the horrible choice between an unwanted child and a back-alley abortion. Before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, such abortions were the leading cause of maternal death and disfigurement. And without private insurance coverage, even middle class women may be forced to turn to cheaper, unsafe underground abortions.

At issue, however, is not only funding for abortions, but also whether they will be available at all. As long as the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision stands, the proposed amendment would only allow potential obstruction through licensing and regulation. If the ruling were overturned, it would allow the state legislature to outlaw abortions.

Advocates of Question 1 note that the proposal would not allow the legislature to prohibit abortion in cases in which the woman's life is in danger. That is the most narrow exemption one could conceive. Meanwhile, victims of rape and incest would be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. Question 1 is not a limited measure; it is a potentially sweeping assault on abortion rights in Massachusetts.

Vote "No" on Question 1. No on one means yes to a woman's right to a safe abortion.

Dissenting Opinion

ABORTION IS AN ELECTIVE medical procedure which should not be publically funded because there is obvious disagreement as to whether it should even be performed. Without a consensus, Massachusetts law should not authorize our tax dollars to finance abortions--like the 36 other states which do not.

As the law now stands, Massachusetts is one of only five states in the country paying for abortions under court order. It's clear that Massachusetts courts are out of sync with judicial and public opinion nationwide.

A vote for Question One tomorrow will rectify this disparity: a "yes" vote will take the abortion issue out of the hands of the judiciary, and return it to the state legislature where it properly belongs.

By restoring the Legislature's power to regulate abortions, Massachusetts voters would not write lawmakers a blank check to overturn Roe v. Wade, as the majority opinion claims. In fact, the referendum is only trying to make this state's laws consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Opponents say this question discriminates against low-income women and denies them freedom of choice. On the contrary, that description more fittingly describes the majority opinion.

As this referendum's opponents have repeated, the operative word here is choice. But choice for whom? How much choice can there be for a poor woman when the only alternative the state offers is Medicaid-funded abortions? There are many more constructive uses of taxpayers' dollars to combat the unwanted pregancy problem. "The fact remains that in this affluent nation of ours, pregnant cattle and horses receive better health care than pregnant poor women," one pro-life advocate says. "The poor cry out for justice and equality, and we respond with abortion."

One exemplary program, the Archdiocese of Boston's Project Rachel, offers to pay all the pre-natal and post-natal costs of any woman who chooses to bring her child to term.

As former Connecticut Governor Ella Grasso said: "Let us not kill the children of the poor, and then tell them how we have helped them." --Thomas J. Winslow   --David S. Graham   --Michael D. Nolan   --Sophia A. van Wingerden