Abortion measure could change Albuquerque as we know it

Editorial, By the Chronicle Editorial Board

The late-term abortion ballot measure has been fueled by out-of-state and out-of-touch anti-abortion activists, who have no vested interest in the values or daily lives of New Mexicans, and should be stricken down with a steady hand by true Burqueños.  Two of the major players in these groups, Bud and Tara Shaver, moved to our city for the specific reason of drum¬ming up anti-abortion regula¬tions, nothing more.  These groups call our city “the abortion capitol of the United States,” saying hundreds of people flock to Albuquerque to get late-term abortions.  In reality — as in, the real world — according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New Mexico hosts less than half of the abortions that our neighbors Arizona and Colorado do, and less than a sixth of the number Texas does.  Out of the comparatively small number of abortions that are performed, only five per¬cent are performed on people who come from out of state.  In light of these facts, the title bestowed upon us by these propagandist groups seems less than fitting.  These groups falsely claim that abortion is dangerous to women.  In 2008, the most recent year for which this information is available, only 12 women died out of the more than 825,000 who received an abortion, according to the CDC.  That’s a 99.9985 percent safety rate; according to the FDA that is a higher safety rate than ciprofloxacin, a common antibiotic widely considered safe and widely prescribed for urinary tract infections.  The fact of the matter is that the arguments against abortion largely trends toward those of a moral and religious standing, and if one’s beliefs lead them to view abortion as wrong, so be it; that is one’s own personal conviction and decision to make.  That does not mean, however, that laws should be enacted to reg¬ulate a personal and heartbreaking decision — particularly not when the people who are leading this charge are more concerned with the politics of the issue than with the people who would be affected by this abortion ballot is passed.

Argument for the ban

By Daniel Montano, Managing Editor | Photo from PROLIFEWITNESS.ORG

42

President of Students for Life UNM, Samantha Serrano, said one thing is at stake with the proposed ballot measure: the lives of children.

Serrano believes that life begins at conception, even if the child is not able to survive outside of the womb at that time, and that abortion ends a human life, she said.

“If we do not win this election, babies are dying,” she said.

The term that is used when a fetus is capable to live outside the womb is “viable” and for Serrano, the magic number is 20 weeks old, she said.

The conceptual basis of viability provides a frame of reference for the larger philo­sophical question of when a fetus becomes a person, and for those in favor of this ballot measure, it is undis­putable that a fetus is a living human being by five months, Serrano said.

Although the number is up for debate and has been said to be anything from 20 to 28 weeks, 20 weeks is the time when Serrano said a pre-born human can begin to feel pain.

For supporters of the ballot measure, knowing a human being can feel pain, subjecting that human to pain and ending its life is inherently morally wrong, Serrano said.

“By allowing for abortion in the later terms of preg­nancy, we are basically saying we acknowledge this is a human being, we just don’t care,” she said.

Serrano said she is also a part of Project Defending Life, a local pro-life ministry headed by Father Stephen Imbarrato.

Imbarrato believes that in addition to saving the lives of children, he is working for the health and well-being of the women in question, he said.

“Abortions are not safe. They’re potential risks to women, especially when you start getting into late-term abortion,” he said.

Imbarrato said he is pushing for reform to give women “real options” when it comes to pregnancy.

As part of his ministry, Imbarrato provides counsel­ing services to women with unexpected pregnancies, providing housing assis­tance, access to pre-natal care, such as ultrasounds, and assistance receiving social services, he said.

“Women have abortions, not because of choice, but really because they feel they have no choice. They’re in a desperate situation,” he said.

For Imbarrato, the ques­tion should not be whether or not one should have access to abortions, but why a woman would feel as if she needs to get an abortion in the first place, he said.

Being a catholic minis­try, Project Defending Life provides these services under the guidance of the church, counseling women on the teachings of the Bible, he said.

Serrano however, does not take that approach with her outreach efforts, she said.

She believes it is impor­tant to include people of all faiths in her discussions, so she approaches the topic from an academic perspec­tive, she said.

“We may not agree about religious beliefs, but we can find common ground in biol­ogy and philosophy,” she said.

With this approach, Serrano said she has found success when discussing late-term abortion procedures, which account for about 1.5 percent of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexual and repro­ductive health non-profit organization.

However, her and Imbarrato’s goal is to com­pletely ban all abortion, regardless of how far along the pregnancy is, she said.

“From a pro-life point of view, I think that this is a stepping stone toward ending abortion all-together, and that is the ultimate hope,” she said.

For Serrano, there is no difference between having an abortion at two weeks or five months, and killing a child two years into life, she said.

She said she believes the motivation is the same.

In response to the argu­ment that abortion is a pri­vate medical and moral deci­sion, and that there should not be laws regulating such decisions, Serrano thinks that certain private decisions do require legal regulation, she said.

Just because a woman has a right to make private decisions, does not mean she will always make the right decision, both morally and legally, she said.

“Women can make pri­vate choices to prostitute themselves; the law says that’s wrong. Women can choose to drink alcohol while pregnant, but the law says that’s wrong,” she said.

Albuquerque has become a battleground state in the legal abortion debate in part because of the Southwest Women’s Options clinic, one of only a handful of clinics nationwide that will provide abortion services throughout the pregnancy, which has led supporters of the ballot measure to dub Albuquerque “the late-term abortion capi­tol of the United States,” Imbarrato said.

The most recent avail­able data, from 2009, shows 5 percent of all abortions in New Mexico are performed on women who come from out of state, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“People come here from all over the country, and other places outside of the country, come here, to Albuquerque, to get an abor­tion,” Imbarrato said.

Battle of the ban; The late-term abortion issue heats up in Albuquerque

By Daniel Montaño, Managing Editor
With one week left until the votes are done being cast in Albuquerque’s contentious late-term abortion ban ballot measure on Nov. 19, campaigns on both sides of the argument are working harder than ever to get people out to the polls.
The Chronicle spoke with representatives from both sides to shed a little light on the argument.

For the accompanying articles, go to http://thecnmchronicle.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/argument-for-the-ban/ for the argument for the ban, and http://thecnmchronicle.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/argument-against-the-ban/ for the argument against the ban.

Argument against the ban

By Daniel Montaño, Managing Editor | Phot Courtesy of Facebook.com

41Because there are so many varied opinions and personal motivations within the group of people opposed to the upcoming ballot measure, Respect ABQ Women has taken an eclectic approach to lead the charge in striking the ballot down, Micaela Cadena, Respect ABQ Women member and policy director at Young Women United, said.

Respect ABQ Women is a coalition of local groups, including men and women, the young and the old, reli­gious or not, families and individuals, dedicated to protecting women’s right to make private medical deci­sions regarding their own body and, Cadena said.

“For us, it’s really about each family being respected and trusted to make the best decisions for them­selves,” she said.

The real issue at stake for Cadena and other groups opposed to the ballot mea­sure is not an issue of abor­tion, but one of personal responsibility and the right to have one’s own personal life and health free of govern­ment interference, she said.

Cadena said that regard­less of one’s personal opin­ions on abortion, there should not be a law forcing anyone to fall in line with a particular belief.

“It’s not actually a debate between pro-choice and pro-life. It’s about accurate information and respectful conversations, because our families, for many reasons, don’t believe in government interference in our private lives,” she said.

Julianna Koob, a local Attorney who works with Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, which is also part­nered with Respect ABQ Women, echoed Cadena’s sentiments, and added that the people within this coalition are New Mexico natives, who care about what happens within their home state, she said.

Koob’s comment reflects some of the contro­versy surrounding how the petition that this ballot mea­sure is based upon was started — by groups of anti-abortion activists who came to New Mexico from other states specifically to lobby for a ban here in Albuquerque, she said.

“We’ve been protecting women’s access to reproduc­tive healthcare for genera­tions. We’re invested in New Mexico, and we’re not going anywhere after the elections,” Koob said.

Both Koob and Cadena also hold issue with the lan­guage of the ballot measure itself, they said.

“This ballot is com­pletely misleading and biased,” Koob said.

The language of the proposed law does not allow exceptions for cases of rape, incest or complications, forc­ing women who are in these circumstances to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, Cadena said.

The law also does not allow for exception in the case of fetal anomaly, abnormalities or diseases that are found with the fetus in utero, meaning if this ballot passes, women will be forced to continue a pregnancy that would end with a child that could not survive outside of the womb anyway, Cadena said.

The way the law stands now, in cases such as these the woman in question has the option of ending the pregnancy, reducing the chances of complications and infec­tions that can threaten her life or cause problems with future pregnancies, Cadena said.

“Many times these are wanted pregnancies, fami­lies are excited about the new beings that they’re going to bring into their family, and they have no options. These can be pregnancies that may never be viable outside of the womb,” Cadena said.

Some women do chose to complete the pregnancy even in the case of fetal anomaly, and that is exactly the freedom of choice that Respect ABQ Women and opponents of the ballot like Cadena are seeking by strik­ing down this bill, she said.

“We cannot stand in a woman’s shoes. We cannot make those decisions for her. I can’t imagine what it would be like to be in this situation,” she said.

Although the ordinance would allow for an abortion if the life of the mother is “endangered,” the language is vague and indistinct, Cadena said.

Respect ABQ Women representatives took the lan­guage of the ballot measure to Albuquerque physicians in order to determine if doctors could make a viable medi­cal decision while keeping within the limits of the pro­posed law, Cadena said.

The physicians agreed that the language is so vague it effectively eliminates the possibility of ending a preg­nancy if the woman’s life is in danger, Cadena said.

“When we brought the language of the ballot to medical professionals, they told us ‘we don’t know what this means. If you’re 30 seconds away from death can we per­form a procedure then?’” Cadena said.

Doctors would be forced to make decisions about how to best keep a family healthy and well based on governmental oversight, not necessarily the option that is best for the woman, Koob said.

“A doctor should not have her hands tied when she is trying to get the best care to her patient,” Koob said.

For more information on Respect ABQ Women, or to get involved in their cam­paign, go to http://www.respect­abqwomen.org.