South Carolina's existing abortion law (Section 44-41-50) states that medical employees ("physician, nurse, technician or other person") are not required to aid in abortions and cannot be demoted, dismissed, suspended or otherwise disciplined by the employer.  

Throughout the state, only three clinics provide elective abortion services; 91 percent of South Carolina counties have no abortion provider.  South Carolina's existing abortion law states that before obtaining an abortion, a woman must be informed by the physician performing the abortion of the probable gestational age of the fetus.  The three clinics that provide first trimester elective abortion services routinely conduct pre-abortion ultrasounds precisely to determine gestational age. Whether or not this is medically necessary, clinics are following this practice to protect themselves from malpractice suits and attempts to shut down their services.  The "if" in H.3245 does not provide women with a realistic opt-out option.  Performing an abortion without the ultrasound proof of gestational age would leave providers vulnerable to sanctions that could further limit women's access to abortion services in South Carolina.

Ultrasound has been touted in the public eye as a fail proof technology that serves to "inform" women about their pregnancy.  Yet determining gestational age without an ultrasound is possible by a trained professionals; this is accomplished throughout the world.  Ultrasounds must be interpreted and if this is done by someone who is not trained to appropriately use the technology, the "information" generated can be erroneous. (The extent to which this is happening in anti-choice pregnancy "counseling" sites throughout the US needs to be documented).  On March 19, 2009 I had the opportunity to testify before South Carolina's Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee.  Public testimony was given both by supporters and opponents of H.3245, speaking to Subcommittee members Senators Thomas, Fair, Hutto, Pinckney and Bryant in 2-minute spots.  Supporters of the Bill included several women who had negative abortion experiences during the 1970s (including pre- Roe v. Wade).  One woman asked the Senators to think about the "times that they gone shopping with their wives and how long it took them to pick out a new dress." (Note: South Carolina has no female Senators).  This same woman emphasized the ways in which "women's bodies are raging with hormones" and how they "needed help in making the decision to end life."  Others attributed divorce, anger and food disorders to women terminating their pregnancies.  Opponents of H.3245, including two physicians from two of the three clinics that provide abortion services in South Carolina, emphasized that most women seeking care have already reflected and come to their decision to end their pregnancies.  In my own testimony, I stated that, "This bill will negatively affect the ability of many women in our state to access a legal medical service.  When a 24-hour delay is put into place, women who do not have flexibility in their jobs to be able to take off from work for several days and women whose financial situation does not allow for making two office visits for a service that should take just one will be most severely affected.  In addition, the delay for many women may become much longer than 24 hours, as they find it impossible to make a second appointment within the 24-hour period.   This delay can make the abortion more expensive and less safe, especially if women seek untrained providers or their own ways of ending their pregnancies."  

I included these points in correspondence to Senator John Courson, urging him to help defeat H.3245.  His response included his understanding that H.3245 would put South Carolina in line with 26 other states and that "for such a sensitive and important issue, the 24-hour wait time does not seem to be unreasonable."  Not unreasonable for whom?  He ends his correspondence by trying to appeal to my "feminine side", I suppose, by stating, "Of the seventeen women serving in the South Carolina General Assembly, only four voted against H.3245."   Clearly Courson wants me to see that most women in the General Assembly were "reasonable"; my own conclusion is that we need to fully support the four women that voted against H.3245 in educating their fellow Assembly members, both women and men. 

H.3245 assumes that women make the decision to abort quickly and without thought and that the State of South Carolina should, therefore, impose a 24-hour period post-ultrasound during which they might reflect.  Given the grave shortage of safe abortion services in South Carolina, I suspect that during that 24-hour period few women will be engaged in deep meditation and most will be scrambling to find childcare, figuring out a way to take several days off of work or school instead of just one, and finding an affordable place to stay for several nights until the 24-hour period elapses since most will have to travel for both the ultrasound and the abortion procedure.  This, of course, assumes that they are able to schedule the abortion for within 24 hours of the ultrasound. Many women will also be working on a way to raise the funds to pay for two medical visits instead of just one.  More than 326,00 female residents of South Carolina have no health insurance coverage.  Even women who have insurance coverage through the State Health Insurance Plan must come up with the cash themselves, unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest or places the woman's life at risk.   Some may travel to neighboring states.  Others will find the barriers to be insurmountable and will continue with their pregnancies.  This is the true goal of proponents of H.3245 and of other constant attempts to impose legislation to make abortion services less and less accessible in South Carolina.   

Proof:  On April 6th The Greenville News Published a 650 word article by Anti-Choice Senator Mike Fair titled "Waiting Period Makes Sense." Senator Fair, a publicly elected official who sees no line between Church and State exclaims:  "H.3245 simply reflects common sense."  Why?  Because according to him "The leading cause of death is abortion.  Approximately 1.2 million unborn children die due to elective abortion each year...Pregnancy should be a blessing.  Many do not recognize the blessing at the time, but that is true of very many of the blessings God bestows upon us....More time will equate to more life."  Which way do you think Fair is voting on H.3245?

Mexico's Supreme Court has stated in no uncertain terms that despite the strength of the traditional Catholic Church and other ultra-right conservative forces, science, secularism, and human rights are the true basis for deciding whether or not the abortion law should be upheld.  Justice Sergio Salvador Aguirre Anguiano, who wrote the supporting argument for the case of unconstitutionality, and his conservative supporters stand corrected; women throughout Mexico are vindicated with this decision. 

Activism has not paused for a moment.  On September 4, members of the Network for Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Mexico (ddeser, Red por los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos en México) demanded the resignation of José Luis Soberanes, President of the National Human Rights Commission, citing his incompetence in defending women's human rights and his unwillingness to defend the Constitution and international agreements on reproductive rights, signed or ratified by the Mexican Congress.   

What this could mean in the short, medium and long term is that unsafe abortion would disappear from the list of causes of maternal mortality in Mexico; right now, according to official statistics, unsafe abortion is the country's fifth most common reason why women die during pregnancy.  The crime here really is that abortion procedures (both "surgical" and with medications) are among the safest medical interventions that exist, meaning that not one woman should have to risk her health or her life because she cannot or does not want to continue with her pregnancy.  

The Supreme Court proceedings themselves are worthy of praise and study.  In the spirit of full transparency on this controversial topic, the Court held a series of public hearings from April 11 to June 27, 2008, which were broadcast live on their website.  This "microsite" can be consulted by anyone in the world and was constantly updated throughout the processes.  Videos of the public hearings (audiencias) can be consulted, along with presenters' notes, notes taken by the Court, press bulletins, and even a Virtual library with dozens of relevant documents, including laws and references.  During and after the proceedings, citizens have been encouraged to post their comments about the decision.

Testimonies from such noted activists and professionals, including Jesus Zamora Pierce Pierce Law Firm), Raffaela Schiavon Ermani (Ipas Mexico), Marta Lamas (Debate Feminista), Susana Lerner Sigal (Centro de Estudios Demográficos, Urbanos y Ambientales del Colegio de México), María del Consuelo Mejía Piñeros (Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir), and Pilar Muriedas Juárez (Foro Nacional de Mujeres y Políticas de Población), among others provided the rights-based and scientific evidence needed to substantiate and solidify the Court's final decision (the public statements supporting unconstitutionality can be viewed on the sites for days one, three, and five).  Such access to information and to the proceedings of the Court is unprecedented and, in my opinion, contributed to the strength of the debate and to the final decision of the Justices.   

Mexican feminists have struggled to legalize abortion for decades.  In 1931, Mexico City approved a law that "decriminalized" abortion in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape, from "imprudent" behavior on the part of the woman, and when the pregnancy presented a risk to the life of the woman.  Since then, the movement has continued and strengthened over time.

During the last 15 years in Mexico, especially since the international conferences in Cairo and Beijing (ICPD, 1994 and the Fourth World Conference on Women, 1995), the demands of civil society and particularly women increasingly have been incorporated into public debates, public policy and law.  Their strategies have been creative, collaborative, and based in strong scientific evidence; their successes come from their never-ending commitment to their causes and their resolve to contribute to significant and positive social change for citizens of this country. 

The Supreme Court's decision was heavily influenced by the work of women's groups and feminists throughout the country.  Life (vida), safe and voluntary motherhood, human rights, including reproductive rights, and the freedom and right to decide "in a free, responsible and informed manner the number and spacing of children" (Art. 4, Mexican Constitution, added in 1974) were invoked as support for the Court's final decision.  These arguments are congruent with contemporary, globalized societies (rather than the very narrow argument of "privacy" on which Roe v. Wade is based).  Strategies used by feminist organizations and civil society, as well as the process and final decision of Mexico's Supreme Court should be studied and used as a model for movements toward justice and human rights throughout the world. 

Gracias a las organizaciones listadas abajo por su trabajo sin descanso, (casi) siempre con sonrisa y siempre con energía y creatividad; Gracias a México, por su visión y compromiso a las vidas de los seres humanos.

Afluentes; Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir (Catholics for the Right to Decide); Consorcio para el Diálogo Parlamentario y la Equidad (Consortium for Parliamentary Dialogue and Equity); Decidir (Decide): Coalición de Jóvenes por la Ciudadanía Sexual (Youth Coalition for Sexual Citizenship); Elige (Choose): Red de Jóvenes por los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos (Network of Youth for Sexual and Reproductive Rights); Equidad de Género: Ciudadanía, Trabajo y Familia (Gender Equity: Citizenship, Work and Family); Federación Mexicana de Educación Sexual y Sexología (Femess, Mexican Federation for Sexual Education and Sexology); Foro de Mujeres y Políticas de Población DF (Forum on Women and Population Policies); Fundación Mexicana para la Planeación Familiar (Mexfam, Mexican Family Planning Foundation); Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación (Analysis and Research Center); Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida (GIRE, Information Group on Reproductive Choice); Incide Social (Social Involvement); Ipas México; Kinal Antzetik Distrito Federal (Mexico City Kinal Antzetik); Letra S, Salud, Sexualidad y Sida (Letter S, Health, Sexuality and AIDS); Red Democracia y Sexualidad (demysex, Democracy and Sexuality Network); Population Council; Red Nacional Católica de Jóvenes por el Derecho a Decidir (National Network of Catholic Youth for the Right to Decide); Red por los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos en México (ddeser, Network for Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Mexico); Salud Integral para la Mujer (SIPAM, Integral Health for Women).

Related Posts

• Laura Villa, Mexico City - Now With More Human Rights!

After navigating the maze of walkways leading to the Global Village, I entered its bright euphonious space.  Over 8000 square meters are covered with an impeccably white tent.  Inside, the Village features booths from organizations coming from every region of the world.  The sounds of discussions and debates, workshops, live theatre and drumming, live radio show interviews with positive people, the buzz of networking and strategizing fill its space. 

Eugenia Lopez-Uribe, Global Village Coordinator and member of the International AIDS Society México AC, reflects that the “Global Village provides an opportunity for people to not just attend the conference, but to make it their own.  Paying the high registration fee is something that only a privileged group of people can do. The GV is free and open to all so everyone can take advantage of what this meeting has to offer.  The GV is a space where real people can talk about and work toward real solutions.  Dialogue is possible here, something that’s not happening in the panel sessions.”  Lopez-Uribe recognized the spirit of solidarity with which the staff of the Centro Banamex is working to make this enormous space one that meets the needs of all participants.   

The Global Village at this 17th International AIDS conference in Mexico City is by far the largest of the three GVs held so far in the world.  The first, held in a small “garage-like” space in Bangkok in 2004, grew into a somewhat larger space for the 2006 Toronto conference.  This year’s mammoth village is testament to the persistence of community groups around the world, demanding that their voices be heard and their experiences included in strategies that are developed.  Their presence and participation exclaim that HIV/AIDS cannot be relegated exclusively to medical and scientific discussions; that social, cultural, and political issues must also be addressed and to do so, the voices of community members must be heard.   

Tamil Kendall, local coordinator and international liaison for the Alliance for Gender Justice AIDS 2008, which organized the Women’s Networking Zone (WNZ), described the Global Village as a space “that ensures that there is a place in the conference to gather and express the leadership and knowledge of people affected and infected.”  The WNZ, whose motto “All WOMEN, All RIGHTS,” is the culmination of a year-long consultative process among partners aimed at incorporating gender, and especially women’s voices, into the discussions and debates related to HIV/AIDS experiences.  The feminization of AIDS absolutely requires that women’s experiences and leadership are in the forefront of efforts, a point emphasized by student volunteers in the WNZ, Isabel Arrastia and Elizabeth Shaw from Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.  

Listening, acceptance and inclusion are important dynamics that permeate the air of the GV.  People of all races, ethnicities, genders and gender/sexual orientations, ages, classes and cultures intermingle and exchange ideas across experiences and languages.  “Acceptance is one of the keys to preventing HIV transmission,” highlighted Luis Perelman of the Armario Abierto in Mexico City, a project and bookstore dedicated to eradicating homo/bi/transphobia.  He continued, “If your family thinks that you’re worthless and disgusting, will you really value your life and yourself?  Will you really engage in sex practices that help to protect you?  If you’re HIV+, will you really take your medications?”  In a session sponsored by the Armario and PFLAG, a Mexican mother spoke poignantly of her son’s transformation from Jorge to Sabrina and how today her daughter lives happily, openly and able to exercise her rights to have a family with her partner in Catalan, Spain.  Her mother remains in Mexico, determined to create greater acceptance among communities in her country and to demand laws and policies that guarantee the rights of all people, regardless of their gender and sexual orientation.   

Dialogue and mutual learning characterize the Global Village. “This is a space where money and one’s access to resources does not define one’s access to information and opportunities for discussion,” emphasized Dinys Luciano, Director of Development Connections, which focuses on addressing the often-ignored link between HIV and violence against women.  “This space re-energizes me.  There are so many ways that people are presenting information and helping others to understand their realities—with art, photography, dance and not just through one-way lectures.  Here you can focus more on processes, which are so important for creating alliances.”   

“This space is so important for us, to connect to other people throughout the world.  It’s a space for the free flow of ideas and exchanges, which doesn’t happen in the panels” -- it was a sentiment shared by many of the people I interviewed, including Marisa Brigati of the Sex Worker Outreach Project in New York City and Hassan Cherry of the Health Care Association of the MENA region.  Hassan emphasized that this GV was the first time that groups from MENA were present.   

As Peter Piot, Executive Director of UNAIDS, emphasized in the opening session, there is no technical “fix” for HIV. What remains to be done in the HIV/AIDS movement is the really difficult work of addressing the root causes of HIV and AIDS, including sexism, racism, gender inequality, poverty, stigma and discrimination; this can only be done with the active and creative participation and leadership of communities throughout the world.  This year’s Global Village is providing an invaluable space for that to happen.