### Reagan's world agenda for women United States president Ronald Regan's anti-woman positions have become even clearer with his increased support for right-to-life forces and attempts to cut funding for international population programs which include abortion services. What emerges is, in fact, a world agenda contrary to the interests of women.
This kind of orchestrated offensive by the right is also evident in other countries, such as in Canada. According to Socialist Voice, (English-language paper of the Canadian section of the Fourth International) the recent victory by Dr Henry Morgentaler to establish a Toronto, Ontario abortion clinic "is the scene of a critical showdown on women's rights."
The anti-choice forces are preparing a week of demonstrations at the Toronto clinic. This goes hand in hand with recent moves by both the Ontario government and the federal government in their so-called legal battering of women's rights.
The battle for the right to choose will certainly be continuing in North America.
In the articles below, we take a look at the Reagan administration's maneuvers at the 1984 International Conference on Population, and update the situation of clinic bombings (See, International Viewpoint, No 65, December 10, 1984.) including an interview with an activist in the pro-choice Reproductive Rights National Network.
urged to take appropriate steps to help women avoid abortion, which in no case should be promoted as a method of family planning, and whenever possible provide for the humane treatment and counselling of women who have had recourse to abortion."
British National Abortion Campaign member Leonora Lloyd wrote in Socialist Action [British revolutionary socialist puplication] on September 9, 1984, that this resolution could be interpreted in two ways. Either "as encouragement for countries... to start promoting better methods of and access to contraception, plus improved facilities and more sympathetic treatment of women seeking abortion - or it could be seen as anti-abortion."
It is clear that anti-choice forces will read this resolution as a mandate for reversing the gains of legalised abortion, be it in Britain, the United States or elsewhere.
The current population of the globe is somewhere around 4.7 billion people, with the next billion to be added within 15 years — 90 percent of them in developing countries. The questions of how to feed, clothe and provide a living for the planet's population are indeed grave. But forcing imperialist ideologies and population control policies on people -in this case most specifically women, be it by non-funding for abortion services,
Linda WOODS
Abortion hit the headlines last summer during the 150 nation-strong International Conference on Population held in Mexico City. The Reagan administration's intention was to cut funding to international population programs practising or promoting abortion, and it also questioned the validity of family planning itself.
Clearly put, the US does "not consider abortion an acceptable element of family planning programs." But the US has long banned aid to developing countries for abortion services. According to the Financial Times of August 8, 1984, this new policy "seeks to cut off funds to private organizations involved, however peripherally, in providing abortion services. Countries with state-funded abortion facilities will continue to get population assistance provided the US money is held in segregated accounts."
Abortion remains legal in the United States, so the lesson is, if you can't beat them on your home ground, try to push the "Moral Majority' opinion off on the rest of the world. With the US holding the purse strings on some 240 million dollars for population programs in 1984, that is, 44% of all industrialized country aid for family planning, this rule would end US population-control aid.
This world agenda for controlling women's lives and arrogantly imposing the "dictates of our [US] national conscience" [sic] on other governments was promoted by the American delegation head James Buckley, president of International Viewpoint 11 March 1985
Radio Free Europe and a prominent Roman Catholic. The US team of ideological "experts" helped Reagan keep his promise to Right-to-Life forces that abortion would feature prominently in the 1984 presidential election campaign.
While the only support garnered for this position at the population conference came from the Vatican, the final resolution supported by all nations ex-
Women at it by non-funding for abortion services, sterilisation programs or the promotion of unsafe contraceptives - is not in the interests of women or the working class as a whole. Hypocritically bemoaning the fate of the "Third World's' rising population, while flaunting racist and sexist rhetoric about the declining [white] birth rate in Europe makes it very clear that the Reagan agenda for women worldwide should be vigorously opposed. work
In a cover story of Business Week (January 28, 1985) "Women at we are told that women are "flooding" into the iob market. Looking at women's ever vocal demands for equal pay, one forecast suggests that "if women today were to earn 74% (actually it is 64%) of what men were paid, the country's wage bill would be 100 billion dollars higher." Now that is a thought to send Reagan and profit-hungry capitalist America working even harder on the barefoot and pregnant ideal of womenhood!
Business Week also looked at the 'new feminization of poverty, noting that "13 million women, of whom 4.2 million are nonwhite, are living in poverty." They list "more divorces, longer widowhood and retirement, increased teenage pregnacies, and the tendency of women to be in lower-paying jobs that lack childcare and health benefits" as causes of female poverty. Yet the 1985 US budget proposals will mean huge slashes in these areas and denial of needed services for women.
Abortion clinic bombings have made startling and scary headlines, and the offensive against American women's right to choose remains a main strategy for the right, but it is also just the tip of the iceberg as far as the global situation of women are concerned.
25
Clinic bombings - the rightwing on the offensive
Inspite of a year of abortion clinic bombings, some coming within minutes of one another, hundreds of less serious incidents and a daily zealous harassment of women using clinic services, the United States government has done very little to stop this terrorism.
The FBI sent out a circular to clinics warning them to expect violent attacks around January 22, the twelfth anniversary date of the legalization of abortion, but did nothing to indicate it would prevent the possible attacks. Ronald Reagan spoke to a cheering crowd from the Washington, D.C. March for Life on January 22 with terms of praise and support. "I am proud to stand with you in the long march for the right to life. I am convinced that our response to the 12 anniversary" of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling "must be to rededicate ourselves to ending the terrible national tragedy of abortion."
He went on to say, "I am convinced that that spirit of understanding begins with a recognition of the reality of life before birth and a recognition of the reality of death by abortion. But that spirit of understanding also includes, as all of you know, a complete rejection of violence as a means of settling this issue."
### LEGISLATION
This was the first time Reagan had condemned the clinic violence, but in rather hollow terms along side his glowing support for the right to life movement's goals.
"Reagan's rhetoric has been exacerbating and encouraging the right-wing forces," commented a National Organization for Women (NOW) member contacted in Washington D.C. Inspite of the arrests of some nine people in connection with the bombings since December, can women really sit back and say thank you to this government?
Matt Goldsby, Kaye Wiggins, Kathy Simmons and James Simmons were arrested in early January in connection with a bombing in Pensacola, Florida rensacola, 26 in summer 1984 and three Christmas Day attacks which did a combined 375,000 dollars in property damage to three different facilites. Wiggins, age 18, said the December 25 bombings were done as "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."
"The bombings are an act of desperation. Antiabortion tactics have failed politically, in the courts, everywhere, a NOW member told me.
"The [anti-choice] movement is feeling very strong and has been legitimised in the press," commented Marlene Fried (see interview below). Efforts by the right to gain support for a constitutional ban on all abortions through their Paramount Human Life Amendment have failed. The most recent vote, in 1983,
Interview with pro We publish below a telephone interview made on February 7, 1985, with Marlene Fried, member of the Boston, Massachusettes chapter of the Reproductive Rights National Network. The Reproductive Rights National Network Principles of Unity state they stand for reproductive freedom on a worldwide basis and are an "activist network seeking to organize and educate women and men in healthcare facilities, workplaces, unions, schools and communities" in support of their principles.
"Around the country the response to the bombings is that people are angry. The pro-choice sentiment is a lot stronger now. People are linking the bombings with the anti-choice movement, as a log. ical extension of a crazy movement. But they [the right] are on a clear offensive. They have gained ground with Reagan and other conservative forces, which is bad, obviously. That movement is feeling very strong because their position has been legitimised in the press. Recent polls show that our support has not softened up. Our support is, however, more intimidated.
There were more dramatic, immediate and direct changes after Reagan's first election. This term there are more subtle changes and consolidation of these changes. The right wing has captured the imagination of the media.
The Paramount Human Life Amendment was dropped about one and a half to two years ago, when it was clear that it had no chance. But I wouldn't be surprised to see it come up again. Reagan is commited to it and has been throughout.
did not pass in the Senate, but it could come up again given the more favorable climate and support from the Reagan administration.
Waiting for the chance to appoint more conservative judges to the Supreme Court, which Reagan could do in the event of any of the current judges dying, does not seem to attract the attention of the right's vociferous and active moral minority.
While some 70,000 joined the March for Life, pro-choice forces were not silenced around the country. Local activities have been immediately organized after every clinic bombing. And for January 22, NOW organized 30 chapters in 18 states in activities ranging from weekend long vigils inside the threatened clinics, escort services for taryang the facilities' users, ringing the state house in Annapolis, Maryland, and the sending of shoes to the White House "because Reagan wants to keep women pregnant and barefoot." -choice activist
Human life amendments proposed at the state level, such as here in Massachusetts, have also been the focus of antichoice strategy. The right erodes what it can to build a base at state level, and if the amendments pass, they can in fact end all medicaid [government contributions towards medical expenses, for example to low-income persons or the elderly] funding. There are only 13 states which still do provide medicaid funding.
The women's movement is fragmented and not very powerful. Women's groups are barely surviving, which is different from 1973. A lot of the effect of the right wing has been to make a lot of our support very quiet. In fact, the right has got fabulous press, which we don't get.
Local response has always been immediate to each bombing. But there is a lot more intimidation. For example, in Boston, a general health clinic which performed very few abortions, perhaps one-tenth of one percent of their services went to this, has stopped doing abortions. They have said publicly they are not stopping of their own free will but have been forced into this by the terrorism of the right wing.
We had some 600 people for a pro-choice gathering in Boston on January 22 and NOW organized vigils around the country, but that's not enough. I think it has to be more public and more visible.
The terrorism has foced a break and people who haven't been doing anything in a long time came along to the Boston event saying it was time to stand up. A lot of people call us every day asking 'what can I do?' So there is a response, but it is not yet mobilised on a very large scale."
International Viewpoint 11 March 1985
INDIA _
-