Pro-Choice Group Axes Petition

A petition created by two graduate students to bridge differences between activists battling over abortion rights was rejected by Harvard pro-choice advocates Monday as an "anti-abortion document cloaked in neutral language."

The petition, endorsed by the Harvard-Radcliffe Progessive Alliance for Life, claimed to focus on goals jointly held by pro-choice as well as anti-abortion forces. The document advocated several "positive measures" to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and "the anguish suffered by many women in the event of an unplanned pregnancy."

Measures included increased counseling for women with unwanted pregnancies, prenatal and day care and "a change in social attitudes which will remove the shame or guilt often associated with unwanted pregnancies."

Julia L. Shaffner '91, head of Harvard-Radcliffe Students for Choice, said after rejecting the proposal that her group was "created for the sole purpose of defending reproductive freedom."

"That's not what [the petition] was about," Shaffner said. "We didn't agree with the tone of the petition and felt that it was basically an antichoice document cloaked in neutral language," Shaffner said.

Petition co-author Patricia J. Lodi denied charges that the document was biased against abortion rights. "That's absolutely untrue," said Lodi, who said she considered herself prochoice.

The other author, Elizabeth A. Komives, said, "Because the debate is so polarized, nothing is being done for women at this time. These are things that both sides can support." Komives said she opposes abortion rights.

"Let's stop the bad feeling, bitterness and alienation that stem out of arguing over the legality and morality of abortion," said George P. Cassidy '90, co-director of the Harvard-Radcliffe Progressive Alliance for Life. "Let's improve the conditions that make abortion such a prevalent reality."

Lodi said that perhaps the prochoice group did not realize that the petition "was not being presented as a completed work...We want input."

"I still hope it'll catch on in the Harvard community," she said. "Perhaps if Students for Choice feels it's too broad for them, we're hoping the Radcliffe Union of Students will consider it as an overall women's issue...That's probably the route we'll be taking next."