Bag the Gag Rule

On October 1, after much legal wrangling, the abortion "gag rule" will go into effect in the nation's 4000 federally funded family planning clinics.

A truly bad piece of public policy, the gag rule will bar most staff members at such clinics from even discussing the option of abortion with pregnant women seeking counseling. And it provides yet another reason to vote against President Bush this November.

First promulgated by the Reagan administration in 1988, the gag rule was a not-so-disguised way for members of the religious right and other anti-abortion activists to inject their narrow views into government policies otherwise protected by Roe v. Wade. If family planning clinics can't even discuss abortion, gag rule proponents reason, fewer women will have abortions.

For those who support choice, as we do, the issue is simple. Everyone should have as much information as possible about how to handle an unwanted pregnancy in order to make the best choice for their lives. The government should be involved only in protecting that choice.

But even those who oppose abortion rights might find reason to oppose the gag rule.

Most abortion rights opponents basically want the government to prohibit doctors from performing abortions. From our point of view, that's bad enough.

But this rule, in the extreme, would prohibit women from even thinking about abortion--from even knowing that safe, legal abortion exists as an option. In the worst fascist traditions, the rule effects government policy by in some way controlling the thoughts of the governed.

In this context, it is of no small significance that family planning clinics serve mostly poorly educated women living in poverty. It's quite conceivable that might well try to perform abortions themselves without these facts.

For those low-income women forced to complete their pregnancies, their children will have the fewest opportunities to advance. Conservatives who pay little or no attention to the plight of the inner cities should think twice before effectively increasing their populations.

The issue of freedom of speech should also be a concern. While the Bush administration amended the rule last March to allow physicians to discuss abortion with clinic patients, nurses, nurse practitioners and social workers are still forbidden from broaching the option. Any time the government attempts to curtail free speech, warning signals should flash everywhere.

And anyway, about 90 percent of clinic patients see a nurse, not a doctor, when they go for counseling. The move to exempt doctors was simply a cynical ploy to disguise the absurdity of the gag rule.

Unfortunately, the efforts of family planning groups to stymie the gag rule's implementation have almost been exhausted. Halted until now by litigation and congressional action, it seems inevitable that the rule will go into effect.

Last year the Supreme Court gave constitutional blessing to the rule, and President Bush vetoed legislation to overturn it. The House and Senate have recently approved a new bill to throw out the rule, if only to force Bush to veto it again during an election year. It's unlikely that Congress will be able to muster enough votes for an override.

What's revealing about the politics of the gag rule is the extent to which the small religious right has come to influence the highest levels of government. Before joining Ronald Reagan on the 1980 ticket, Bush favored abortion rights.

Since then, Reagan and Bush appointees to the high court have protected the rule, and a politically beholden Bush has vowed to support the far right's position on every abortion measure--even to the length of spitting on the Constitution.

One conclusion from all this should be clear: Bush's position on abortion is wrong. In November, we can do something about that. But that shouldn't be the end.

The Supreme Court came perilously close to overturning Roe last summer, and many of the nation's other federal judges oppose abortion rights. In the long term, we should work to pass pro-abortion rights legislation in the states. While we should not ignore legal fights, this battle should also be fought at the grass roots. Winning on this level will mean a more secure future for the right to choose.