STATEMENT MADE AT THE YONKERS CITY COUNCIL'S PUBLIC HEARING
CONCERNING THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION SUPPORTING A FEDERAL BAN
ON CERTAIN ABORTION METHODS,
JUNE 24, 2003, YONKERS CITY HALL, YONKERS, NEW YORK.
Jon Wegienek
My name is Jon Wegienek, and I have lived in Yonkers for twelve years. I currently serve on the executive board of the Westchester chapter of the National Organization for Women. I also served as the chair of the reproductive rights task force of NOW at the state level for nine years.
Imagine for a moment that you know a healthy woman in her last month of an uncomplicated pregnancy. At this stage the woman only has two choices: continue the pregnancy, have the baby and raise it as a member of the family, or continue the pregnancy, have the baby and give it up for adoption. Abortion is not an option for healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies at this stage, because the fetus is viable at this time. In our society, viable fetuses are delivered with full medical support, both for them and their mothers. And that is how it should be.
There are, and will continue to be, however, rare instances where the life and/or health of a
pregnant woman will be threatened if a pregnancy continues. The recently approved federal legislation that bans certain abortion procedures plays politics with women's health. A pregnant woman has the right to end a pregnancy that threatens her health, and she has the right to the safest method available as determined by her physicians. We expect that government will respect the reasonable medical judgments of doctors and their patients. We also expect that lawmakers understand the notion of precedent. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that it is unconstitutional not to include an exception to protect the health of the woman in attempting to legislate in this arena.
The idea that nearly-born healthy infants are threatened with homicide by syringe-wielding physicians in collaboration with healthy women is preposterous, disingenuous, and outright insulting. We know that the real purpose of this ban is not to protect women and babies, but to make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions, both before fetal viability and in later stages of pregnancy when a woman's life and health might be endangered were she to carry to term. The so-called "partial birth abortion" phrase was invented by legislators who do not support abortion rights. The medical community has made it clear that this term is not found in any medical dictionaries, textbooks, or coding manuals. It's just one more attempt to limit women's right to choose.
The proposal put forth by Mr. McLaughlin should be recognized for what it is-an attempt to capture votes. The council should reject it.
Thank you.
|
