Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I think you're right about Roe v. Wade allowing states to put some
    restrictions on abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters; I know that
    Planned Parenthood will only do 1st trimester abortions.  However,
    I do not think that those restrictions include the right to force
    a woman to carry a fetus to term.  That is to say, under Roe v.
    Wade, women have the right to abort at any time during a pregnancy.
    I don't know about this for sure, however.
    
    That's probably what the opposition to Bellotti's amendment is (that,
    and the fact that he would not allow the use of state funding for 
    abortions).
    
    In my opinion, this opposition is a valid one.  If we are going
    to allow abortion on the basis of a woman's right to privacy, then
    this must include all abortion, for any reason, at any time of the
    pregnancy.  I don't believe that there is ever a point at which
    we (society) can validly force a woman to remain pregnant against
    her will.

    If Bellotti would not not allow public funding for abortions, I
    heartily agree with you!  I did not know that was the case.  Are you
    sure????
    
    (The day the govt allows me to exclude *my* taxes from national
    budget items that offend *me*, I will likewise support the rights of
    others to do so.)
    
    Nancy

    Roe v.  Wade said that a state could not restrict abortions in the
    first  trimester,  could put in some (health related) abortions in
    the  second  trimester,  and could prohibit abortions in the third
    trimester. Note that they did not requre regulations in the second
    or third trimester, they merely allowed them.

    I believe  that  the reason most clinics won't do second trimester
    abortions  is  that  they  require  (for  both  medical  and legal
    reasons) more equipment.

--David

My understanding of the negative reaction by pro-choice (NOW specifically) was
distrust of the "in the state's interest" clause. It seems like that could be
used to stop all abortions, no matter how early, if a "state's interest" could
be defined (quoted clauses are not exact; apologies).
	Mez

    Reports in yesterday's Boston Globe stated that Bellotti's amendment
    grew from 2 sentences to 5:  "Specific language was added preventing
    the state from restricting public funding for abortion in a
    discriminatory manner, and clarifying that a woman's absolute right to
    terminate a pregnance extends 'until viability,' or until a fetus can
    survive outside the womb."
    
    The editorial pages carried a column by Bellotti himself, "A woman's
    right, the state's duty" which was very strong and very well-stated.
    He *does* support public funding for abortion: 
    
    	"As it was before Roe, we will once again see 50 states with 50
    laws on abortion rights.  And more restrictions, such as those upheld
    in Webster, will be imposed on the ability of poor women to obtain
    abortions which will still be available to wealthier women.  This is
    ridiculous.  The exercise of a constitutional right should not depend
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    on an accident of geography or of personal finances.  If the Supreme
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Court will not resolve this issue, then it will be up to the courts and
    state legislatures to do so.  I therefore propose that we amend our
    state constitution to include a right to privacy which recognizes a
    woman's right to choose as defined by Roe v. Wade as well as the right
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    to public funding established by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
    Court in Mary Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance."
    
    I have since heard NOW leaders (Jackman?) insist on abortion "on
    demand" throughout the entire pregnancy.  That was not the position 
    of Roe v. Wade, and is not my position, either, (as explained in the 
    base note).  It saddens me that I cannot look to NOW as my "public voice!"
    
    Nancy

Does anyone know the best way to get feedback to NOW, such as Nancy's?
	Mez

    
    Call the Boston office and ask them to whom one should direct feedback.
    
    am