What
is a ‘pro-choice city?’
By Barbara Fitzgerald
Special to The CS&T
Since a determined number of activists began pushing “pro-choice”
designations on municipalities across the United States, their success
had mostly been limited to a scant smattering of California cities —
until last week.
The controversial 9-8 decision by the City Council to imprint Philadelphia
with a “pro-choice” label marked the first time a major
U.S. city accepted such a designation at the hands of Planned Parenthood,
which has a clear interest in the matter. The organization is one of
the largest providers of abortions in the nation.
The push for pro-choice designations follows a recent groundswell in
the country for protecting the dignity of human life.
Decisions in recent years by Congress, state legislatures and the United
States Supreme Court, and support by members of the public, to uphold
the rights of the unborn have caused those in pro-abortion camps to
react ever more aggressively in their statements and proposals for legislation.
Back in 1993, some cities in California — including West Hollywood
and Berkeley — declared themselves “pro-choice” cities.
But the movement did not take hold until 2006, when pro-abortion political
activists decided to launch a campaign for designations across the country.
The recent effort also started in West Hollywood, where the city council
embraced the label in January 2006 — passing a resolution to renew
“the city’s commitment to spreading awareness of reproductive
health issues through the creation of a pro-choice city campaign.”
The initiative was spearheaded by Council member Abbe Land, a longtime
abortion advocate.
Copies of the resolution went out to U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and
Dianne Feinstein, other lawmakers such as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger,
and organizations including Planned Parenthood, the National Organization
for Women, NARAL, the Feminist Majority Foundation and Pro-Choice California.
At first there was little activity.
Then, this past January, a few cities started to follow West Hollywood’s
lead. Those designations passed soon after the “March of Life”
in Washington, D.C., and the “Walk for Life West Coast.”
Sponsored by those who support the rights of the unborn, the marches
are peaceful protests on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme
Court decision that legalized on-demand abortion. The marches have gained
steadily in popularity, adding thousands of young people to the pro-life
cause each year.
Days after the Walk for Life, in California the city council of Santa
Cruz passed a resolution joining West Hollywood in the pro-choice cities
campaign.
Weeks later, Berkeley voted to renew it “pro-choice city”
designation, and officially joined the pro-choice cities.
The sponsor of the Santa Cruz resolution was Cynthia Matthews —
a city council member who is a co-founder of Planned Parenthood in that
city, and who has been affiliated with that organization for 40 years.
Matthews said at the time of the vote: “You only have to look
at the statements made by George Bush on the Roe anniversary, encouraging
anti-choice activists in Washington, D.C. You only have to look at the
hundreds of pieces of anti-choice legislation introduced throughout
this country in state capitals, to know that this issue is by no means
resolved.”
The measure did not pass in Santa Cruz without opposition. Some residents
objected that the vote was “very offensive.” One told the
council that the measure left a “hole in my soul,” and another
asked the council not to “encourage the Santa Cruz mommy’s
womb to be a tomb.”
In Philadelphia, many residents have also found the designation presumptuous
and intolerant.
In fact, it seems un-American to those on both sides of the abortion
issue, according to area bloggers.
“It makes no more sense to declare the entire city pro-choice
than to arbitrarily declare the entire city right-handed,” one
person wrote on Phillyblog.com, where sentiment against the Council’s
action was uniformly negative.
“Let the people in the city determine what Philly is. We don’t
need legislators creating labels,” wrote another blogger.
Still another said: “Some of my neighbors will feel betrayed that
the city is polarizing an issue [it] should have nothing to do with.”
That the City Council would pass a resolution with no input from the
public — and with little or no advance notice — struck others
as wrong.
One blogger said the Council should have tabled the issue. Others said
the matter was not the Council’s business. And, since the resolution
is not binding and of no legal merit, others said the Council should
spend its time focusing on real solutions.
“If the Council wants to vote on a meaningful resolution, they
might take aim at absent fathers or exhorting the community to provide
options other than abortion for struggling mothers,” said another
writer.
Dayle Steinberg, president of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania,
did not return phone calls for comment.
A spokesperson for the organization said that Steinberg “did not
have time in her schedule” to talk about it, adding, “her
schedule is very booked.”
The pro-choice resolution in Philadelphia was sponsored by Councilwoman
Blondell Reynolds Brown, who has repeatedly been endorsed by Planned
Parenthood in campaigns.
As quick as City Council was to pass the resolution, it could be just
as quick to invalidate it, according to Josh Cohen, a spokesman for
Councilman Juan Ramos, who voted against the measure.
Any City Councilmember could craft a resolution stating, simply, that
Philadelphia is no longer designated a “pro-choice city,”
and put the resolution forward for a vote.
However, the Council would have to act this week if it wished to take
up the matter before it adjourns for the summer. It will reconvene in
September.
Barbara Fitzgerald is a freelance writer and a parishioner of St.
Ignatius in Yardley. She can be reached atbabsfitz@earthlink.net.