Abortion rights on the line Rhode Island’s status as a democratic bastion doesn’t guarantee choice BY RACHAEL SCARBOROUGH KING

Even at a time when a large part of the country is oriented toward the right, Rhode Island’s status as a blue state is incontrovertible. Democrats perennially dominate the General Assembly, and Democratic candidates are so assured of the state’s support that its four Electoral College votes are all but guaranteed. Few people realize, however, that women’s reproductive rights face almost constant challenges in this putative liberal stronghold.

Governor Donald L. Carcieri and a large number of state legislators oppose abortion rights, and the state already has a number of laws restricting the right to abortion that the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Rhode Island, for example, is one of only a handful of states requiring minors to obtain parental consent prior to an abortion. It also has an enjoined law criminalizing abortion — meaning that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, a Superior Court judge could lift the injunction that allows for abortions, single-handedly outlawing the use of the procedure in the state. Because of such factors, the advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) gives Rhode Island a D- for its laws on reproductive rights.

Debate about abortion rights and restrictions across the country is increasing, in large part because of pending confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts — whose stance on the issue remains unknown — and since the US Supreme Court recently accepted its first abortion case in five years. Rhode Island remains in a particularly vulnerable position because of its enjoined law banning abortion, the anti-choice leanings of many state legislators (13 anti-choice bills were on the legislative agenda last session, with euphemistic names like, "The Women’s Right to Know Act"), and a clause in the state Constitution stating that nothing in its Bill of Rights "shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof."

Rita Parquette, director of Rhode Island Right to Life, a pro-life group that provides services for pregnant women and lobbies at the State House, thinks the national political shift toward conservatism ais also evident in Rhode Island. "There’s a vocal minority that says they want abortion, but I really do believe that it is changing in our favor," Parquette says. But she also characterizes Rhode Island as a "blue state," adding that her group still faces an "uphill battle."

Pro-choice advocates, on the other hand, say reproductive rights face serious threats even in the traditionally liberal Northeast, especially in terms of increasing restrictions on abortion rights. They think many voters — believing that because the General Assembly is so heavily Democratic, legislators must have a liberal position — do not pay close enough attention to elected officials’ stances on reproductive rights.

Prominent pro-choice Rhode Islanders have faced repercussions because of their stances. The Catholic Church, for example, in 1985 excommunicated Mary Ann Sorrentino (a contributor to the Phoenix) because of her work as Planned Parenthood’s executive director. In 2001, Pablo Rodriguez, a prominent political activist and doctor who performs abortions, was refused membership in the Warwick Country Club because of his pro-choice stance. Rhode Island, in addition to being one of the bluest of blue states, of course, is also the most Catholic, a situation that influences many voters’ and legislators’ views on abortion.

All this leads Anne Burmeister, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island, to conclude that when it comes to preserving abortion rights in the state, "It’s not an exaggeration, not an embellishment or histrionics, to say we’re on the edge of losing."

WHO’S ZOOMING WHO?

Every Thursday morning and Friday afternoon, protesters gather outside the main Planned Parenthood clinic on Point Street in Providence, holding signs and shouting at those who enter the building. In contrast to the recent rising tenor of the national abortion debate, these confrontations have been taking place for years.

Inside, the clinic is spacious and sunny, with a quiet, calm waiting room, and paintings on the walls. Private donors and the national Planned Parenthood Federation of America support Planned Parenthood, which provides a range of family planning and women’s health services. The large and secure clinic is a sharp contrast to the headquarters of Rhode Island Right to Life, located in a small house on Smith Street, with a dingy one-room entranceway strewn with hand-me-down baby clothes.

Much of the daily work at each facility consists of meetings with people — mostly young women — in need of the services. But each organization also focuses a lot of attention on lobbying on Smith Hill, in the hopes of influencing the situation in Rhode Island through legislative change.

During this legislative session, the Women’s Right to Know Act was the main focus for pro-choice and pro-life advocates alike. State Senator Stephen Alves (D-West Warwick) and Representative Arthur Corvese (D-North Providence) introduced companion bills into the respective chambers of the legislature. While the bill passed the Senate, 27 to 9, the House did not take up the measure before adjourning, killing the legislation for this year. But similar bills have been introduced across the country under the same name, and it’s likely the issue will resurface in the General Assembly in 2006.

The measure would require women to wait 24 hours after their first visit to a physician before having an abortion, and that the doctor provide the woman with information designed to dissuade her from having an abortion, including the medical risks of the procedure and the approximate age and physical characteristics of the fetus. (In 2000, 5600 abortions were performed in Rhode Island, up three percent from 1996, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice organization headquartered in New York. Nationally, the abortion rate declined five percent between 1996 and 2000.)

Proponents say the bill is designed to ensure "informed consent." Parquette, for example, says the legislation’s goal is to reduce the number of abortions performed, adding that this is "what the opposition has always told us they want — abortions to be rare and safe."

But Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kathy Kushnir says Rhode Island already has a comprehensive informed consent law requiring that women fully understand the abortion procedure. " ‘The Women’s Right to Know’ legislation has nothing to do with informing women," Kushnir says. "It has everything to do with restricting access to abortion services — not only here, but across the country." Twenty-two states currently require women to receive state-mandated counseling and wait a set period before having an abortion, and several others are considering similar measures.

For critics, the reasonable-sounding phrasing of the legislation is typical of the tactics used by opponents of abortion rights. "A lot of what we have to do is sort of untangle the right-wing ideologues’ rhetoric," says Melody Drnach, president of the Rhode Island National Organization for Women. "They’re very good in the Bush administration at framing the message and naming their legislation in very confusing ways."