Thirty years ago today a landmark US case legalised abortion andopened up a ferociously divisive debate which continues to dominate US and Irish politics - John Smyth, of the Pro-Life Campaign, looks atwhere that debate is going
In the years since the infamous Roe v Wade case much of the intensity surrounding the initial debate has given way to a more conciliatory atmosphere. People with a range of differing viewpoints increasingly seek ways to work together in search of practical solutions.
Unfortunately, isolated acts of violence perpetrated by extremists on both sides of the debate can detract from the fact that such a measured and meaningful dialogue is taking place at all.
Some regard this changed climate as proof that abortion has finally been accepted as an unchangeable part of US culture. Interestingly, the opinion polls do not support this view. Among third-level students in the US approval of abortion has dipped 10 percentage points in the last decade. And third-level students are not alone. A Zogby Poll released in December found that 32 per cent of Americans have changed their minds on abortion in the past decade, with 21 per cent saying they viewed it more negatively, and only 11 per cent viewing it more positively.
The difficulty is that for too long much of the rhetoric of both pro-choice and pro-life groups obscured the debate and created obstacles to developing solutions to address the real needs of women in the most vulnerable situations. As the rhetoric continues to soften in tone, more and more people feel at ease in sharing their personal testimonies.
To coincide with the anniversary, a group called Silent No More is hosting a series of national symposiums to examine the impact of 30 years of legalised abortion on women. The group is organised across the US by women who regret their own abortions and wish to tell their stories. As well as highlighting the failure of abortion to meet the needs of women, the campaign hopes in the long-term to refocus the national debate on reasons why women feel pressured into abortion and to promote women-centred solutions to these problems.
Ms Susan Renne Mosley, a co-founder of Silent No More, who had an abortion when she was 15, said: "It's time to speak honestly about the pain we've lived with. We want to help other women who are hurting from abortion find peace. This campaign will let them know they're not alone, they don't have to live their life in pain, there is hope. We've found help and they can too."
There is no doubt that the more radical elements within the pro-choice movement regard the emergence of groups like Silent No More and Feminists for Life as a disturbing development. In recent years a number of high-profile abortion advocates defected to pro-life ranks. The decision by Ms Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe in the landmark case (see panel) to join the pro-life side was an embarrassment in pro-choice circles. She now campaigns against the 1973 decision, claiming she was exploited by pro-abortionists at the time.
For a generation, pro-choice campaigners succeeded in sanitising the terms used to describe abortion by indulging in semantic gymnastics rather than scientific facts. The distorted end result of the 30-year journey of Roe v Wade is over one million abortions each year, legal throughout the nine months of pregnancy.
And yet the simple fact remains - no matter how much we try to ignore, forget it or bury it beneath slogans - the unborn child is undeniably alive and human. The debate on partial-birth abortion, infanticide, in plain English, has resonated with middle America on this very point unlike any other debate up until now. The particularly gruesome nature of the procedure, it must be said, leaves little room for denial or silence.
THE new Senate Majority Leader, Mr Bill Frist has described partial-birth abortion as a "rogue procedure" and let it be known he intends to push for banning the barbaric practice during the current congressional session. President Bush, interestingly, unlike his predecessor, has vowed not to veto the ban.
We are frequently told that our approach to abortion in this country is out of date, backward and even hypocritical. The high number of Irish women travelling to Britain for abortions is cited as evidence to support this view. Undoubtedly, we are failing women, but the charge of hypocrisy fails to take account of the actual reality of abortion laws in other jurisdictions.
Rather than feeling pressured into introducing abortion legislation here, we need to work closer together in finding ways to reduce our abortion rate. Likewise, the 1992 Supreme Court decision, which allowed for abortion up to birth, cannot be allowed to stand. The Pro-Life Campaign viewed the referendum last March as a unique opportunity to restore legal protection to the unborn child, while guaranteeing necessary medical treatments for pregnant women.
Despite its defeat, there is no justification for regarding the issue as intractable.
In the US, while the pro-life movement's ultimate legal goal of overturning Roe v Wade will undoubtedly prove elusive for some time, right now the political momentum for redefining the debate into the future seems to be with the right-to-life advocates.
Positive strides are also being made to reduce the rate of abortion by seeking to address the needs of women in crisis pregnancy. The pioneering work of the Caring Foundation has contributed greatly to this by identifying some of the underlying emotional and psychological reasons prompting women to opt for abortion.
As a result, highly effective television advertisements have been produced informing women of the social supports available to them in the event of an unexpected pregnancy.
By refusing to accept rising rates of abortion as inevitable, groups like the Caring Foundation are proving that social solidarity not defeatism is the way forward if we want to build a society that is authentically both pro-life and pro-women.
John Smyth is a spokesperson for the Pro-Life Campaign