Anti-abortion Activists Research Articles

Women Against Abortion: Inside the Largest Moral Reform Movement of the Twentieth Century by Karissa Haugeberg

Reviewed by: Women Against Abortion: Inside the Largest Moral Reform Movement of the Twentieth Centuryby Karissa Haugeberg Neil J. Young Women Against Abortion: Inside the Largest Moral Reform Movement of the Twentieth Century. By Karissa Haugeberg. Women, Gender, and Sexuality in American History. (Urbana and other cities: University of Illinois Press, 2017. Pp. x, 220. Paper, $24.95, ISBN 978-0-252-08246-7; cloth, $95.00, ISBN 978-0-252-04096-2.) Karissa Haugeberg's slim but impactful book, Women Against Abortion: Inside the Largest Moral Reform Movement of the Twentieth Century, joins historical scholarship of the pro-life movement that began with Kristin Luker's remarkable Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood(Berkeley, 1984). Haugeberg makes a unique contribution to this growing body of literature by focusing on the role women played in antiabortion activism, something often overshadowed by the historiography's overemphasis on men's efforts to oppose abortion rights. Haugeberg uncovers her subjects through a masterful use of archival sources, antiabortion publications, legal documents, oral histories, and interviews. She argues that these "women who operated at the grass roots to change Americans' perceptions about life, death, and health paved the way for the erosion of women's right to abortion in the post- Roeera" (p. 35). [End Page 525] The women in Haugeberg's book are a surprising and often confounding lot, including radical feminists, longtime Democrats, and committed Catholics. Many of them had worked for racial justice or protested the Vietnam War. Nearly all of them had dedicated themselves to opposing abortion long before the Supreme Court legalized it with Roe v. Wade(1973). Before the Roedecision, antiabortion work began with the emergence of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in the 1960s, which sought to steer women away from having an abortion by offering different medical services and counseling. Haugeberg points out that the women who opened CPCs thought differently about abortion politics than those in the traditional pro-life movement, who pursued legal and legislative strategies and focused on the rights of fetuses. The CPC activists "remade the abortion debate" by insisting that abortions harmed women emotionally and physically and represented society's failure to protect vulnerable women, arguments that became politically useful in chipping away at abortion rights in the following decades (p. 10). The federal legalization of abortion, however, elicited more militant responses from many of these women who were frustrated by what they saw as the gradualist approach of the Catholic Church and larger pro-life organizations. Catholic feminists like Julianne Loesch launched small groups like Prolifers for Survival to carry out aggressive strikes against abortion by targeting clinics. Pretending to be women seeking an abortion, some activists infiltrated clinics and destroyed medical devices or planted bombs and started fires. Haugeberg shows that the federal government's refusal to classify these acts as terrorism meant that state and local authorities were left to deal with these issues. In states with strong antiabortion politics, judges often accepted these women's defense that their crimes were acts of civil disobedience. Perhaps not surprising given such leniency, some of the women who had embraced violence escalated their efforts toward deadly means. For example, Shelley Shannon attempted to assassinate Dr. George Tiller in 1993. Though Tiller survived the five bullets from Shannon's gun, he was later murdered by Shannon's friend, Scott Roeder, in 2009. Haugeberg notes that historians have attributed such violence to evangelical pro-life men, but her book persuasively demonstrates that many of these aggressive tactics "were transmitted by Catholic women who understood antiabortion protest to be an extension of their long-standing commitment to social justice" (p. 57). Scholars of abortion and feminism will value Haugeberg's meticulous and balanced portrait of these underexamined women. Her study complicates the persistent narrative of the pro-life movement and introduces instrumental historical actors who altered the course of abortion rights. While the book's close focus on the biographies of different women sometimes comes at the expense of accounting for larger historical forces, Women Against Abortionis a much-needed corrective that will surely inspire important additional work on women antiabortion activists. [End Page 526] Neil J. Young George Mason...

“We Are the Visible Proof”: Legitimizing Abortion Regret Misinformation through Activists’ Experiential Knowledge

Since 2010, many abortion policies emerging at the state level have been designed around the idea of “abortion regret,” a scientifically discredited assertion that abortion causes long‐term health problems for women. Studies have examined the legal significance of regret claims in case law as well as the role scientific misinformation and uncertainty play in the policy process. However, scholars have given less attention to the intersection between abortion regret experiences and misinformation. We address this gap in the literature by examining how antiabortion activists' experiential knowledge continues to reinforce and legitimize misinformation contained in state policies. We explore the process of substantiating abortion regret misinformation by attaching it to activists' experiential expertise. Based on twenty‐three interviews with antiabortion activists, we argue that misinformation receives validation through the certainty of experiential knowledge, which activists mobilize around and use as a source of evidence in the policy process.

Reproductive Healthcare Services and the U.S. Supreme Court: beyond Roe v. Wade and 'Abortion Clinics'

At a time when the United States is sharply divided on women's reproductive rights, the focus has shifted from legality to that of access to reproductive healthcare services. This debate is too often defined by the pro-choice/anti-choice binary. This binary overlooks women who seek reproductive healthcare services for reasons other than abortion (such as pap smears, gynecological check-ups, birth control, STD testing, breast cancer preventive screenings, etc.). Self-proclaimed sidewalk counselors approach these women to convince them that there are alternatives to abortion. While some women may welcome a sidewalk counselor's approach, the women who choose to ignore them more often than not risk being scolded, yelled at, harassed, and humiliated publicly. These interactions leave many of these women shaken, nervous, and deterred from seeking necessary reproductive healthcare services. Many states have enacted buffer zone legislation to protect women trying to access reproductive healthcare clinics, but an overwhelming amount of these laws have been struck down on a First Amendment basis. The Supreme Court has decided these cases without defining who qualifies as a sidewalk counselor and who is properly deemed a more threatening protester against whom a legal action may be brought. This has caused great uncertainty in the law. This paper argues that sidewalk counselors and activists’ protesting against abortion outside of these clinics is futile. Reproductive healthcare clinics offer a wide range of services—not just abortions. Therefore, it is impossible for anti-abortion activists to ascertain who is seeking an abortion and who is not without intruding into women’s personal reproductive choices and medical needs. Buffer zones around reproductive healthcare facilities help protect women’s privacy and their right to access so they may obtain the reproductive healthcare they are entitled to receive.

A guerrilla strategy for a pro-life England

ABSTRACTAccess to safe and legal abortion is integral to women's sovereignty over their own bodies. In this paper I examine current anti-abortion strategising in England. I suggest that the range of anti-abortion activities can be understood as part of a broader ‘Guerrilla Strategy’ to restrict access to abortion care. Such an approach focuses on capitalising on the marginalisation of abortion services and areas of legal ambiguity to make abortion care ‘uncomfortable’ to both access and deliver. Guerrilla strategies rely for success on the marginalisation of abortion care (both physically and ideologically) from mainstream medical practice and flourish within a legal framework that relies on physicians as gatekeepers. The paper ends with a consideration of how we might respond to these anti-abortion strategies; in particular paying attention to the ways we can embrace and encourage provision of services to women through supporting and improving the conditions of the important professional bodies needed to deliver these services.

Mifepristone label laws and trends in use: recent experiences in four US states

In the 15 years since approval of mifepristone in the United States, there have been numerous changes in the political, legal and medical contexts surrounding abortion provision. Not surprisingly, use of this simple technology has risen fairly steadily over time, from just 6% of all eligible abortions in 2001 [1,2] to 29% in 2011 [3]. Research on women's abortion-related preferences as well as experience from other countries suggests that use of mifepristone relative to all abortions might be considerably higher than 29% if unconstrained access to medical abortion were the norm, rather than the exception [4–8]. Perhaps as a result of its rise in use over time, or maybe in recognition of its revolutionary potential, antiabortion activists have recently turned their attention to promotion of mifepristone-specific legislation. Two common types of mifepristone restrictions target providers and clinics in an effort to reduce service availability. “Physician only” laws, which now exist in 38 states, limit provision of medical abortion to licensed physicians despite broad recognition that midlevel providers can also safely administer this medication [9]. “Physician presence” laws, which now exist in 16 states, require that the prescribing physician be in the physical presence of the patient, thus preventing use of telemedicine for medical abortion provision [9]. Supply-side policies such as these have been recognized as being more effective than demand-side policies that target women in an effort to diminish use of services [10].

The Value of Pregnancy and the Meaning of Pregnancy Loss

The Value of Pregnancy and the Meaning of Pregnancy Loss

Choice at Work: Young v. United States Parcel Service, Pregnancy Discrimination, and Reproductive Liberty

In granting cert in Young v. United Postal Service, the Supreme Court has intervened in ongoing struggles about when and whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 requires the accommodation of pregnant workers. Drawing on original archival research, this Article historicizes Young, arguing that the PDA embodied a limited principle of what the Article calls meaningful reproductive choice. Feminist litigators first forged such an idea in the early 1970s, arguing that heightened judicial scrutiny should apply whenever state actors placed special burdens on women who chose childbirth or abortion. More ambitiously, some feminists suggested that the State may have to act to affirmatively support some fundamental rights. A line of Supreme Court decisions completely rejected this understanding of reproductive liberty. However, choice arguments rejected in the juridical arena flourished in Congress, during debate about the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). For a variety of strategic and ideological reasons, legal feminists and antiabortion activists turned to legislative constitutionalism to give meaning to the idea of reproductive liberty. While not requiring employers to provide any accommodations, the PDA prohibited employers from placing special burdens on women’s procreative decisions. The history of the meaningful choice principle calls into doubt contemporary judicial interpretations of the PDA, including the Fourth Circuit opinion in Young. When employers accommodate non-pregnant workers, as Young suggests, courts often find no violation of the PDA so long as a policy is “pregnancy-blind” — that is, so long as an employer does not explicitly categorize employees on the basis of pregnancy. This history strengthens the argument against pregnancy-blind policies made in Young by petitioners and amici under a variety of legal theories, including disparate treatment, disparate impact, and disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ultimately, however, the history studied here counsels that legislation, rather than litigation, may be the most promising path for expanding protections for pregnant women.

The Impact of Antiabortion Criminal Activities and State Abortion Policies on Abortion Providers in the United States

This study empirically examined whether acts of antiabortion criminal activities and restrictive state abortion laws had an impact on the number of abortion providers. Using a unique data set, the Feminist Majority Foundation’s 2000 survey of antiabortion criminal acts directed at clinics, providers, healthcare workers and patients, the empirical results showed that acts of violence and harassment reduced the number of abortion providers offering abortion services. An increase in the likelihood of violence or harassment by 10 % reduced the number of abortion providers per 100,000 women of reproductive age by 5.6 and 3.7 %, respectively and the number of abortion providers per 100,000 pregnancies by 7.8 and 5.9 %, respectively. In addition, antiabortion criminal acts were more likely in states with greater economic participation by women, higher levels of sexual violence against women, and western states.

The street politics of abortion: speech, violence, and America's culture wars

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade stands as a historic victory for abortion-rights activists. But rather than serving as the coda to what had been a comparatively low-profile social conflict, the decision mobilized a wave of anti-abortion protests and ignited a heated struggle that continues to this day. Picking up the story in the contentious decades that followed Roe, The Street Politics of Abortion is the first book to consider the rise and fall of clinic-front protests through the 1980s and 1990s, the most visible and contentious period in U.S. reproductive politics. Joshua Wilson considers how street level protests lead to three seminal Court decisions-Planned Parenthood v. Williams, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N.Y., and Hill v. Colorado. The eventual demise of street protests via these cases taught anti-abortion activists the value of incremental institutional strategies that could produce concrete policy gains without drawing the public's attention. Activists on both sides ultimately moved-often literally-from the streets to fight in state legislative halls and courtrooms. At its core, the story of clinic-front protests is the story of the Christian Right's mercurial assent as a force in American politics. As the conflict moved from the street, to the courts, and eventually to legislative halls, the competing sides came to rely on a network of lawyers and professionals to champion their causes. New Christian Right institutions-including Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice and the Regent University Law School, and Jerry Falwell's Liberty University School of Law-trained elite activists for their front line battles in government. Wilson demonstrates how the abortion-rights movement, despite its initial success with Roe, has since faced continuous challenges and difficulties, while the anti-abortion movement continues to gain strength in spite of its losses.

(Out of) Places, Please! Demystifying Opposition to Procreative Choice in Afro-Diasporic Communities in the United States

This essay highlights some of the ways in which contemporary anticontraception and antiabortion agendas are part of a broader agenda to maintain the subjugation of oppressed people, including but not limited to Afro-Diasporic women in the United States. Specifically, I draw attention to certain aspects of U.S. Afro-Diasporic experience as it relates to social economies, personhood, and life, which complicate any analysis of procreative choice as it relates to U.S. Afro-Diasporic communities and individuals. Revealing the stakes of contemporary discourses on procreative choice, this essay turns to a comparative analysis of the similar surveillance technologies deployed by both antiabortion advocates and the U.S. State Department. Suggesting a substantive commonality undergirding the ostensibly disparate interests of “conservative” antiabortion activists and a State Department serving the interests of a presidential administration that opponents consistently critique as being too “liberal” or progressive, this essay signals a cause for alarm. It is undeniable that antiabortion advocates are participating in the work of maintaining the precarious positions of the most vulnerable agents in our political economy. However, it is also evident that antiabortion and anticontraception activists (i.e., those who would deny procreative choice) are not acting alone in the work of maintaining subjugated peoples through gendered and gendering tactics. Many voices are calling out “Places, please!” thereby insisting that the most vulnerable social actors take and maintain their places, holding together the current political economy in all of its unequal splendor. Notwithstanding the diurnal nature of discourses on procreative choice among and about Afro-Diasporic communities, a “politics of respectability” and a “technology of dissemblance” have largely (mis)governed these discursive places. This essay explores the unique significance of contemporary debates on contraception and abortion among Afro-Diasporic people in the United States, the ways in which these debates intersect with a broader racial discourse, and the ways in which Afro-Diasporic ethical and existential

The Influence of the Feminist Anti-Abortion NGOs as Norm Setters at the Level of the UN: Contesting UN Norms on Reproductive Autonomy, 1995-2005

This article investigates why feminist anti-abortion activists have been active within the UN and what their influence is in the establishment of UN norms related to abortion. It will outline their argument and the manner in which a feminist counter argument on abortion emerged at the UN. It will examine why feminist anti-abortion nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been successful at bringing the development of progressive international law on this issue to a halt. The article will conclude that their activities have challenged the idea that international norm development is an essential progressive process instigated by state actors.

The Judicial Bookshelf

The Judicial Bookshelf DONALD GRIER STEPHENSON, JR. Change at the Supreme Court may be most visible and frequent in the progression of statutory and constitutional questions the Justices resolve collectively, but it may also be equally highlighted by an individual Justice’s decision. This reality became plainly apparent in a letter that Justice John Paul Stevens sent to the White House on April 9, 2010, just eleven days shy of his 90th birthday: “My dear Mr. President: Having concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court’s next Term, I shall retire from regular active service as an Associate Justice... effective the next day afterthe Courtrises forthe summerrecess this year.”1 His statement was dated almost a year after Justice David Souter dispatched a similar notice to President Obama on May 1, 2009, announcing his intention to leave the Bench. Thus, for the fifth time in as many years, the machinery of executive nomination and senatorial advice and consent for the High Court churned again. Many who follow the Court closely prob­ ably grasped the significance of the depar­ ture of this Justice who had taken his seat on December 19, 1975. President Gerald R. Ford had nominated him on November 12 to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice William O. Douglas after thirty-six years of service. Indeed, Douglas had shat­ tered the record long held by Justice Stephen J. Field, who sat for thirty-four years and nine months, between March 1863 and December 1897. Stevens’ tenure, stretching across thirtyfour years and six months, even surpassed Jus­ tice Hugo L. Black’s thirty-four years and one month.2 The American political system underwent major changes between Justice Stevens’ ar­ rival and his departure. As evidence, one need look no further than thejudicial confirmation process itself. The hearings before the Sen­ ate Judiciary Committee on the Stevens nom­ ination filled three days in December 1975.3 Alongside proceedings for more recent nom­ inees to the High Court, the hearings for him merit a revisit. Senators seemed nearly as concerned about his health—Stevens had had heart surgery in the summer of 1974— as his approach to constitutional interpreta­ tion. Although Roe v. Wade,4 the landmark abortion ruling, had come down in February 268 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY 1973, no Senator queried him about a woman’s constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy. Discussion ofa constitutional right to privacy instead occurred in the context of criminal justice, particularly with respect to searches and seizures and electronic surveil­ lance. As surprising as it may seem today, the near invisibility of abortion as an issue in the hearings5 in one sense merely reflected the times. Abortion had remained largely in the background as an election issue in 1972. Neither party platform mentioned it, although Democrats considered and voted down 1,570 to 1,103 a minority plank favoring abortion rights. Republican Richard Nixon was already on record in opposition to “abortion on de­ mand” but advocated no action by the fed­ eral government. In separate statements dur­ ing in the winter and spring of 1972, Democrat George McGovern spoke ofabortion as “a pri­ vate matter which shouldbe decided by a preg­ nantwoman and herown doctor.” Nonetheless, he believed that abortion was “a matter to be left to the state governments,” which had “sole jurisdiction.”6 Even as late as the year before Roe came down, abortion seemed to be a sub­ ject presidential politics should largely avoid. That rule tended to characterize much of the 1976 campaign as well. With Ford and Jimmy Carter heading their respective tickets in 1976, afterRoe had come down, neitherpro­ abortion nor anti-abortion activists couldpoint to an outspoken champion. Carter personally disapproved of abortion but opposed a con­ stitutional amendment to end the practice, as did Republican incumbent Ford. Instead, Ford favored the status quo ante—an amendment that would return abortion policy to the states. Of major contenders for the Democratic and Republican nominations in 1976, only Ronald Reagan was uncompromising in his criticism ofpolicies that countenanced abortion...

Abortion, the Golden Rule, and the Indeterminacy of Potential Persons

R.M. Hare and Harry Gensler have each argued that abortion is usually morally wrong because it violates a certain version of the golden rule. The appeal to the golden rule is intended to avoid difficult metaphysical issues such as whether or not a fetus is a person and the moral status of potential persons, any answers to which are likely to be question begging. By applying a certain version of the golden rule to the abortion issue it is hoped that we can come to some conclusion regarding the morality of abortion without dealing with such intractable questions. It also has strong intuitive appeal and is a popular device among anti-abortion activists. Some objections have been raised against this approach, but for the most part this argument has been unduly neglected. The golden rule approach can withstand the objections better than the critics realize and, properly interpreted, the golden rule presents a formidable challenge to the moral acceptability of abortion. Nevertheless, this golden rule argument fails. After considering a version of the golden rule argument against abortion and defending it against the most common objections, we will see why it ultimately fails. There are two important reasons why we should reconsider the golden rule approach to the abortion issue even though it ultimately fails. First, many of the objections raised against the golden rule approach to abortion are aimed at the golden rule itself and its adequacy in assessing or critiquing moral judgments. But the golden rule itself is not the problem and should not be rejected. The problem is with applying the golden rule to a potential person from the perspective of the actual person it is to become. The identity of the potential person is indeterminate. It is potentially a range of different actual future persons. This indeterminacy of potential persons is the second reason why it is important to re-examine the golden rule argument against abortion.

Abortion and Mental Health

Unwanted pregnancy and abortion are common life events, and therapists are likely to work with clients who experience them. Legal abortion currently entails little physical or mental health risk; most women currently cope effectively with these life events without need of clinical intervention. But current abortion politics include efforts to make abortion a more threatening, stressful, and stigmatized experience and to create a “postabortion syndrome.” Using a stress and coping framework, we examine how antiabortion activists spread myths and misinformation aimed at women's appraisal processes, and discuss approaches therapists can use to enhance women's strategies for coping with abortion. We also discuss specific issues and useful techniques for counseling about abortion concerns, including cultural sensitivity and strategies for promoting positive sexual health.

The impact of anti-abortion activities on state abortion rates

This paper examines the impact anti-abortion activities have on state abortion rates. Using 1992 data from the 50 U.S. states, the empirical results find that anti-abortion harassment activities (picketing, picketing with contact, vandalism, bomb threats, and stalking) did not significantly reduce the demand for abortion within a state nor did they cause a change in the location of the abortion procedure. However, three of the anti-abortion harassment activities (picketing with contact, vandalism, stalking) are found to significantly reduce the supply of abortions performed within a state. These results take on particular significance because of recent Supreme Court decisions which consider the threat to a woman’ privacy (the demand side) as the primary reason for curbing anti-abortion protest activities.

Privacy Rights and Abortion Outing: A Proposal for Using Common-Law Torts to Protect Abortion Patients and Staff

When Lori Driver, an anti-abortion activist, learned that Lisa Smith' was scheduled to have an abortion the following day, Driver looked up Smith's telephone number and left her two telephone messages. Smith did not return Driver's calls, so Driver stepped up her efforts, going to Smith's house and leaving anti-abortion literature and a plastic model of a fetus on her doorstep. The next morning, the day of Smith's scheduled abortion, Driver left a message on her answering machine, asking her parents to call about a medical emergency involving their daughter. When Smith arrived at the clinic for her appointment, a protestor called out to her by name and accused her of murdering her baby. An unknown caller left a message for Smith at the clinic that Smith's parents knew about her plan and were distraught. Meanwhile, a clinic representative called Driver's number pretending to be Smith's father returning her message, and the person at the other end informed him that Smith had gone in for an abortion.2

Constitutional Law. Free Speech. Ninth Circuit Denies First Amendment Challenge to Civil Verdict against Anti-Abortion Activists' Intimidating Posters and Website. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (En banc), Petition for Cert. Filed, 71 U. S. L. W. 3292 (U. S. Oct. 8, 2002) (No. 02-563)

Constitutional Law. Free Speech. Ninth Circuit Denies First Amendment Challenge to Civil Verdict against Anti-Abortion Activists' Intimidating Posters and Website. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (En banc), Petition for Cert. Filed, 71 U. S. L. W. 3292 (U. S. Oct. 8, 2002) (No. 02-563)

Antiabortion positions and young women's life plans in contemporary Ireland

At a critical time when Ireland's abortion ban faces legal challenges and the number of women obtaining abortions abroad each year continues to climb, some antiabortion advocates have turned their attention toward the social factors that influence women's abortion decision-making. Through an analysis of articles carried in the Irish mainstream and Catholic presses, this article examines how antiabortion advocates since the late 1990s have promoted an “antiabortion, pro-motherhood” message in response to trends that they identify as indicating that Irish reproduction has “gone awry”. Antiabortion activists have focused in particular on the life plans of young, middle-class, career-oriented women, many of whom have benefited from increased employment opportunities within Ireland. These women are more likely than young women in past generations to postpone childbearing or opt for abortion in the face of an unwanted pregnancy, and thus, symbolize for antiabortion advocates the devaluation of a “traditional” Irish culture centered on the privileging of motherhood and married family life. This article examines antiabortion ideologies deployed around motherhood, work, and childcare, and argues that antiabortion advocates’ “pro-motherhood” campaign fails to adequately respond to the changing realities of young, middle-class Irish women's life opportunities and expectations.

Women on Waves: Where Next for the Abortion Boat?

Women on Waves was founded to contribute to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortions throughout the world by direct action. Because national penal laws, including those governing abortion, generally extend only as far as territorial waters (12 miles), Women on Waves made plans to provide reproductive health services on a ship with a mobile clinic, including abortions, outside the territorial waters of countries where abortion is illegal. We went to Ireland first because it was nearby and there was a dedicated pro-choice community with immediate interest in and commitment to the project. Although we encountered problems that meant we could not do abortions, we were contacted by more than 300 women in five days and provided reproductive health information, contraception, workshops and information on where to obtain legal abortions in Europe. In many parts of the world an anti-abortion backlash is taking place. To safeguard our reproductive rights in the face of anti-abortion activities, it is crucial to recapture a pro-active, pro-choice role. Women on Waves helped to make visible the need for legal abortion services in Ireland, and the extensive class and other differences between women able to access abortions abroad and those who could not. We are currently attempting to resolve our status under Dutch law, but until women everywhere have the right to reproductive freedom, we will continue to make waves.RésuméL'association≪ Women on Waves≫ souhaite prévenir par l'action directe les grossesses non désirées et les avortements à risque. L'association fournit des services de santé géné sique, y compris des avortements, sur un bateau-clinique hors des eaux territoriales des pays où l'avortement est illégal. Le bateau s'est d'abord rendu en Irlande en raison de la proximité et parce qu'il y avait une forte communauté favorable à l'avortement intéressée par le projet. Malgré les problèmes qui nous ont empêchés de mener des avortements, nous avons été contactés par plus de 300 femmes en cinq jours et nous avons donné des informations sur la santé génésique et la contraception, organisé des ateliers et renseigné sur les avortements légaux en Europe.ResumenWomen on Waves (Mujeres sobre las olas) fue creado para contribuir a la prevención del embarazo no deseado y el aborto inseguro en todo el mundo por medio de la acción directa. Women on Waves hizo planes para proveer servicios de salud reproductiva, incluido el aborto, en un barco equipado con una clı́nica móvil fuera de las aguas territoriales de los paı́ses donde el aborto es ilegal. Fuimos primero a Irlanda porque nos quedaba cerca y porque allı́ habı́a una comunidad dedicada al derecho a decidir con un interés inmediato y el proyecto. A pesar de en dificultades que significaban no poder proveer servicios de aborto, nos contactaron más de 300 mujeres en cinco dı́as, y proporcionamos información de salud reproductiva, anticoncepción, talleres e información acerca de lugares en Europa donde se puede obtener un aborto legalmente.

Abortion in adolescence: a four-country comparison

The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparison, using qualitative analytic methodology, of perceptions concerning abortion among health care providers and administrators, along with politicians and anti-abortion activists (total n = 75) in Great Britain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and the United States. In none of these countries was there consensus about abortion prior to legalization, and, in all countries, public discussion continues to be present. In general, after legalization of abortion has no longer made it a volatile issue European countries have refocused their energy into providing family planning services, education, and more straightforward access to abortion compared with similar activities in the United States.