Abortion discussion prompts march

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was introduced into Congress in April.

The FOCA aims “to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.”

“The Freedom of Choice Act affirms that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy,” said Lois Capps, congressional representative of the 23rd district, in an e-mail. “And that the federal government is prohibited from interfering with a woman’s right to exercise those choices.”

While the FOCA is some legislators’ form of rebuttal against the Gonzales v. Carhart decision, Cal Poly students had their own approach.

On May 22, about 25 students silently marched from Dexter Lawn to the University Union Plaza, where they encouraged discussion of the decision.

They decided to be silent because “this decision effectively silences women and their doctors (regarding second and third trimester abortion),” said Ruth Osorio, English senior and member of Cal Poly Women’s Awareness, the student-run club that organized the event.

“We realize that San Luis Obispo is a small town,” Osorio said. “We may not enact major social change in Washington, D.C., but we also realize that not many people knew about it . every person I talked to didn’t know what happened.”

The group utilized Free Speech Hour, 11 a.m. to noon on Tuesdays, to draw attention to why they were marching and hand out information to other students.

Their main goal was to encourage discussion, industrial engineering junior Erica Janoff said. Many people look to other groups on campus to inform them.

“It’s difficult on a conservative campus to spread word about more liberal-minded things, but most people appreciated the effort we made,” she said.

They got a mixed response, Osorio said. “Most people’s response was curiosity, wanting more information.”

Cal Poly Women’s Awareness club members decided to organize the event about a week after the court decision, Osorio said. The CPWA members made up about a third of the marchers, with a few members of the Cal Poly Democrats and some people who had just heard about it, she said. About one-third of the participation was male.

Part of the group’s motivations came from a “lack of media coverage” due to timing of the decision, Osorio said. The decision was announced two days after the Virginia Tech shootings.

In addition to the silent march and speakers, the group was collecting signatures in support of the FOCA, which has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The FOCA has 87 cosponsors in the House, including Capps and 21 others from California; and 18 in the Senate, including California’s senators and presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It was introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

“I believe that my support for this legislation represents both my district and my personal beliefs,” Capps said in an e-mail. “I have received tremendous support from my constituents regarding my stance on a woman’s right to choose.

“As for personal beliefs, as a health professional, it is imperative that the federal government not get involved in a decision that must be made between a woman and her health care provider.”

The 5-4 Gonzales v. Carhart Supreme Court decision states that the Partial Abortion Ban Act’s failure to include a provision allowing for a woman’s health “does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right.”

“First, the court ignored recommendations from health care professionals and prohibited a procedure that is medically appropriate,” Capps said. “Worse, though, is the fact that the decision sets precedence for failing to include exceptions to account for the health of the mother.”

Though the decision stated that the act’s prohibition would be unconstitutional if it subjected to women to significant health risks, it also stated that evidence presented in trial courts demonstrated that “both sides have medical support for their positions. The court’s precedents instruct that the act can survive facial attack when this medical uncertainty persists.”

Opponents of the decision feel differently.

“I think that potential effects of this ruling could be the performance of alternative procedures that may in fact be riskier for the health of the woman,” Capps said. “It could also force health care professionals into a dangerous position of having to choose between upholding their professional oaths to act in the best interests of their patients’ health and breaking federal law.”