The Newseum panel comprised three abortion experts: Janet Benshoof, the president of CRLP who has argued two reproductive rights cases before the Supreme Court; David J. Garrow, PhD, author and professor at Emory University School of Law; and Helen Rodriguez-Trias, MD, a pediatrician with more than thirty years' experience who is involved in several health-related professional organizations. The moderator was author and New York Times columnist Anna Quindlen. US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the 7-2 majority opinion in Roe was scheduled to sit on the panel but was unfortunately unable to attend. The lecture was both interactive and multi-media, utilizing video clips, panel debates, and questions from university participants.

After an introduction by Quindlen, the audience watched an historical video detailing the criminal status of abortion in the mid-1800s Rodriguez-Trias contextualized the video by pointing out that the creation of the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1847 established the concept of doctors as professionals. This organization delegitimized midwifes who, along with their patients, had previously controlled women’s health care decisions. Between the time of the AMA’s formation and Roe, doctors (who were almost entirely men) had the right to decide who got (safe) abortions.

The audience then watched a second video, which detailed the involvement of religious leaders immediately before Roe. Contrary to today’s political environment in which most religious communities advocate a pro-life stance, in the pre- Roe years, many ministers and rabbis fought for choice. These leaders, who were almost entirely men, believed that women should be their own "moral agents," able to make up their own minds about the decision to abort. Benshoof discussed the importance of religious leaders' involvement, pointing out that the Roe opinion acknowledges the uncertainty of when life begins. For some religions, life begins at conception while for others, the fetus does not become a human being until birth. By allowing a woman to make a judgment according to her religious convictions, the Supreme Court reinforced the separation of church and state.

Shortly thereafter, the conversation turned to the legal and political status of abortion in the ‘90s. The panelists repeatedly talked about the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which weakened Roe by making explicit a state interest in protecting potential fetal life and maternal health throughout pregnancy. As a result, state governments can place regulations on abortion, including forced counseling and twenty-four hour waiting periods, as long as these restrictions do not "impose a substantial obstacle" on the pregnant woman. Benshoof commented that Casey removed the element of government neutrality that had been a factor in states’ abortion policies under Roe. In Casey, women who

Class and race were constant themes in the lecture. Rodriguez-Trias stated that over 40 million people in the US currently have no health insurance, a figure in which women of color, people with lower incomes, and those living in rural areas are disproportionately represented. All these women have less access to abortion. Both Benshoof and Garrow believe that Casey makes the situation of these women even more difficult: the imposition of waiting periods forces women in rural areas who must travel to abortion providers to either stay overnight in the town or city where the provider is located or to travel there a second time, a financial and logistical burden many women cannot afford.

The panelists discussed the current situation of abortions being provided in freestanding clinics, many of which are run by women’s groups, rather than in hospitals. Garrow and Rodriguez-Trias noted that having abortions done on an outpatient basis has made the procedure less expensive and, therefore, available to more women. It has also, however, separated abortion from "mainstream medicine," a marginalization that has made many clinics difficult to maintain as independent service providers.

Responding to audience concerns, Rodriguez-Trias noted that she doubts Roe will be completely overturned because of the strong women’s health movement that has burgeoned over the last two to three decades. She predicts that RU-486 and methotrexate, which are currently illegal in the States but widely used as abortifacients in Europe, will become available in the next several years. She also noted that the advent of managed care in the US could have a positive impact on the availability of abortion.

In discussing further challenges in the twenty-first century, Quindlen noted that fifty percent of the abortion providers in the US are over fifty years old. The medical community will therefore have to grapple with the issue of training younger doctors to perform abortions. This could be particularly difficult in light of the fact that abortion is simply not taught in many medical schools today. Rodriguez-Trias offered the potential solution that nurse practitioners could also be trained to do abortions, therefore widening availability.

A further challenge lies in laws that restrict teenagers’ access to abortion. While teens throughout the country are allowed to have a baby without their parents’ consent and can even take an infant off of life support in some states, many girls under eighteen must get the permission of their parents or a judge to have an abortion. Ironically, this forces many younger teenage girls into motherhood; by contrast, older teens, are more likely to have the resources to cross state lines to a clinic or to get a local, court-permitted abortion.

In the future, the panelists agreed that more effort needs to be put into the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, particularly in regard to teenagers, who need to be able to protect themselves from pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV/AIDS. Benshoof also noted the strong possibility of using the Supreme Court as a proactive protection for abortion rights instead of using it as a reactive tool to stave off attacks from pro-life forces. Up until this point, pro-choice forces have usually only gone to the Court when someone has challenged abortion rights. Perhaps a proactive approach will further solidify women’s right to choose.

150 supporters of a woman’s right to safe, legal abortion came to the front steps of the Supreme Court to hear a dozen people tell of their abortion experiences both before and since the Roe decision. The speakers included women who had gone to great lengths to obtain an abortion before it was legal, an older man whose mother had died attempting to abort a fetus in 1928 when he was just a small child, and women in their twenties who still encounter challenges when seeking abortion. Despite a few--very loud--anti-choice protesters, this was a proactive, empowering event demonstrating support for abortion rights. Welcome to a new semester at The George Washington University. As a new Women's Studies graduate student, I spent the first few weeks adjusting to my new surroundings. The more I get used to things, the better I will be at reporting events. Read this issue knowing that it is my first effort at editing a newsletter and that future editions will only improve.

January 21: Capitol Hill Reception and Lobby Day

Pro-choice activists who had come from across the country to lobby Congress on abortion rights during this momentous week were energized by a multitude of well-known speakers at a breakfast sponsored by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and 32 other pro-choice organizations. Kathleen Turner, Joanna Kerns, Ron Silver, Bonnie Franklin, and others representing the acting community roused activists with their words. Speeches by government officials like U.S. Representative Connie Morella (R-MD), and Donna Shalala empowered us. Sarah Weddington, the attorney who successfully argued in favor of abortion rights in Roe v. Wade spoke articulately and powerfully about the importance of this decision to women’s lives. Lobbyists left the event full of passion and ready to have their voices heard.

January 21: Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Entitled, "The 25^th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: Has it Stood the Test of Time?" these hearings featured Norma McCorvey, who was the Jane Roe of the famous case. Ms. McCorvey, now active in the movement against abortion access, explained to severely anti-choice republican Senator John Ashcroft from Missouri (the only member of the Subcommittee present for the hearings) that she had lied about the circumstances surrounding the unwanted pregnancy which was at the center of the Supreme Court case. Because of her lie, and her observation that some abortion clinics are not sanitary, McCorvey reasoned that the right to abortion should be struck down.

January 22: Anti-Choice March

Approximately 50,000 anti-choice marchers gathered on the National Mall and walked to the Supreme Court to demonstrate their position on legal access to safe abortions for women. It appeared that a large proportion of the anti-choice forces were children, mostly high school students, some much younger, all carrying signs depicting dismembered fetuses and bloody scissors. Although the sheer number of participants will be used by those trying to influence politicians’ stance on abortion, many of these protesters were clearly too young to understand the issue and there was a palpable ‘field trip’ mentality amongst them. After their march, the streets of Capitol Hill were strewn with their discarded posters and other refuse.

January 22: Refuse and Resist Counter Rally

About 100 people gathered in the middle of the anti-choice throngs on the Mall to demonstrate support for abortion rights. Many students, organization leaders, and pro-choice singers helped to express the small group’s stance. Some antis gathered around the counter protesters crying and praying, saying that both they and God loved and forgave them for the sin they were committing. A small, brave group of the pro-choice resisters met the antis at the culmination of their march, in front of the Supreme Court, where passions rose to their breaking point and some people (on both sides) were arrested. It was evident that Refuse and Resist was successful in their effort not to have their position completely over-shadowed by the anti-choice opposition as they made the front page of The Washington Post the next day.