GUEST COLUMN: The choice is mine alone

Margie Fishman says governmentMargie Fishman says governmentmust protect, not limit, women'sMargie Fishman says governmentmust protect, not limit, women'sessential reproductive rights. Margie Fishman says governmentmust protect, not limit, women'sessential reproductive rights. "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?," asked the faded bumper sticker that occupied a spot on my silver Nissan until last December. Although the dealership tore the sticker off when my parents traded in the hunk of metal, the sticker's slogan embodies the essence of the pro-choice movement. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this liberty in 1973, when it made a precedent of plaintiff Jane Roe's essential right to obtain a safe, legal abortion. Yet from the day of the Roe v. Wade decision to the present, women have been threatened, harassed,and even killed, all in the name of morality and respect for God's miraculous gift of life. Ironically, this glorified respect for life seems to exclude everything and everyone except fetuses. Doctors who perform abortions must resort to wearing bulletproof vests to stay alive, and women with unwanted pregnancies must endure nine months of bodily stress and hours of labor to deliver babies who will be shoved into the foster care system upon their first breaths. Statistics note that unwanted children are twice as likely to suffer from social, emotional and educational disadvantages as wanted children. Radical organizations like Operation Rescue, the Right to Life and the Christian Action Group employ terrorist tactics such as blockading doors of clinics and screaming at already terrified patients, mirroring actions of the Ku Klux Klan during the civil rights movement. Forces that promote uniformity of thought and action have no place in a nation that prides itself on being a "cultural melting pot." How many times must we oust religious beliefs from our governmental policies? Certain "Bible belt" groups order their members to refrain from using condoms -- and to practice abstinence until marriage, archaic ideals that are incompatible with a society approaching the 21st century. As a volunteer at Planned Parenthood in Center City, I am advised to ignore the unruly protesters chanting just beyond the iron gates and the harassing phone calls that ring through without warning. The clinic operates under the professed mission of providing sexual education and family planning services to underprivileged men, women and teens, yet it is penalized by organizations that are quick to preach, but slow to listen. These self-righteous groups paint an inaccurate portrayal of a woman being rushed to the surgical department where her evil doctor -- who obviously detests children -- awaits the opportunity to slice her open with sadistic pleasure. The reality of the situation is that the women who telephone our organization with the intent to terminate their pregnancies must endure an extensive gynecological exam followed by an in-depth counseling session. A woman's decision to abort her fetus is only reached after meticulously weighing all of the available options. Even after the procedure, she is instructed to return to the clinic within the next four weeks for a medical exam and post-abortion therapy. It is necessary to shatter the mythical representation of the "typical" abortion seeker. The image of the promiscuous teen hunting for a quick fix is exaggerated and deceiving. Teachers, wives, aunts and suite-mates do not magically escape unwanted pregnancies, yet their struggles are rarely publicized. Society conveniently labels unwanted pregnancy as a "prostitute's dilemma" or a "14-year-old's tragic blunder" so that the general population will view the issue as affecting only "morally deprived individuals." Unfortunately, women fail to realize that once the government is granted the power to regulate one aspect of our bodies, it will continue to pass legislation undermining our basic freedoms as citizens of this country. I'm certain that levels of male participation in the pro-choice movement would dramatically increase if the government instituted a law ordering men to undergo surgical attachment of a permanent condom. Maybe then they would finally figure out why all of us feminists are so disturbed by the government's efforts to regulate abortion services. Gloria Steinem once said that "No one is pro-abortion? the question is, whose decision should it be?" Should a government be allowed to force a woman to have a child against her will? Who are we to restrict another individual's body based on our personal code of ethics? Must women who have abortions be branded with scarlet As on their breasts? How one individual perceives the issue of abortion, how one individual views its morality or immorality, should not become the standard for our entire society. The unseen forces that shape a democracy's laws and the tangible services made available to its citizens reflect a united effort on the part of the people to have their interests recognized. A woman who becomes pregnant unintentionally either relinquishes power over her body and accepts limitations for the term of her pregnancy -- or she is shamed, humiliated and haunted by the fetus growing inside her. While a man may simply walk away from the burden of an unwanted child, a woman must come to terms with being labeled either a Murderer or a Spineless Conformist. Which term would suit you? Don't waste your precious time fretting about it pro-lifers, because it isn't your choice to make!