Battle for abortion rights fought daily

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER ^ | 10/16/02 | Deborah Oyer, Abortion Provider

[madprof98]

Two years ago, my landlord told me he wouldn't be renewing the lease for my medical practice when it expired in June 2002. I naively assumed this wouldn't be a problem. With a weakening economy and plenty of medical and commercial space available, surely I'd be able to find a good home for my business. I couldn't have been more wrong.

My business, Aurora Medical Services, provides women's reproductive health services. More specifically, we are one of the leading abortion providers in Washington state. We do this proudly and openly. As a result, we were almost run out of town.

Friends in the abortion community across the country warned me that it wouldn't be easy to find new space. Oh no, I told them, Seattle is a very progressive town; I won't have any trouble. During the two years I worked to find a new site, I was shocked to find the extent of overt discrimination here.

Right off the bat I identified a great space in a medical building in the Northgate area. I informed them of the nature of my practice. The owner and I agreed on the price and terms of the lease. Right before signing, the questions began. "How many abortions do you perform in a year?" "How much of your practice is abortion related?" The building owner withdrew his offer.

Space in a nearby building was available. After agreeing to general terms with the owner, questions and comments arose. "How long have you served on the board of the National Abortion Federation?" "I see that you lecture on abortion at UW Medical School." "Your Web site shows you provide information for women considering abortion." His interest in my work was narrow. I was never asked about my tenure on the alumni board of Harvard Medical School or my community involvement. This building owner, too, withdrew the lease.

This scene played out again and again. Owners typically wanted to meet with me to discuss their concerns. "How often have there been protesters at your clinic?" "Can you assure me there won't be any demonstrations near my premises?" Three more rejections ensued. Most of these spaces remain unoccupied today.

One of Seattle's leading hospitals had the perfect space in a great location for my practice. The hospital flatly refused to deal with me. Shocked, I made appeals to its officers and directors to no avail. I began to worry I wouldn't find space anywhere. I extended my search to a larger geographical area and to buildings that weren't built for medical use. Open discrimination thwarted every option.

After 18 months of searching, I became desperate and made an offer to lease space in Gateway Center, a largely vacant shopping plaza at 183rd Street and Aurora Avenue. The owners agreed to lease us an empty shell that we would need to convert to medical space. The lease was signed in December 2001.

For the next few months, I worked with architects, construction companies and the Shoreline permit office. The timeline was very tight and I worried that the construction wouldn't be complete before my existing lease expired. In late March, we finally received our permits and were set to begin construction. Then the building owners changed their minds.

Attorneys for the owners threatened to sue us to terminate the lease. They charged that we hadn't been sufficiently explicit about the problems associated with housing an abortion clinic. They criticized us for not disclosing that "other landlords declined to lease to Aurora."

Attorneys at the Northwest Women's Law Center assured us that our lease was solid and we would win the case in court. On principle, we wanted to fight Gateway's discriminatory actions. However, we didn't want to jeopardize the important services Aurora Medical Services provides for countless women. A protracted legal battle might risk a temporary closure of the practice.

In May, we were able to find space in a wonderful medical building at the corner of Broadway and Madison Street in Seattle, with welcoming owners. We reached an out-of-court settlement with the owners of Gateway Shopping Center. Our abortion and reproductive health services continued without interruption at the new site in July.

Although we were able, finally, to find new space, our two-year struggle serves as a reminder that the battle for abortion rights in Seattle is being fought every day. Anti-abortion scare tactics are restricting services. This nation won the right to a legal abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973. With the passage of Initiative 120 in 1991, these rights were codified in state law.

Now the right to a safe, legal abortion is being threatened in a more insidious manner. We can't afford to let up. The battle to protect a woman's right to choice is a never-ending one.

---------------------------------------------------------

Deborah Oyer, M.D., owns Aurora Medical Services, which is hosting an open house at its new site (1001 Broadway) from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Oct. 21. The public is welcome.

[Lorianne]

This is a very good point. I hadn't thought of this before. Why shouldn't abortion be shown on TV? Why is it being hidden from view? I thought we had an open and free society and most everyne champions that openness and freedom?

Could it be we're not as free a society as we think?

[victim soul]

Open House on OCtober 21 -- public is welcome!!

Aurora Medical Services, (1001 Broadway) from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Oct. 21.

Do you suppose she will offer free abortions like NY City Planned Parenthood did after 9-11?

Or do you suppose she will show you a live abortion procedure and the "products of conception" she terminates with her own hands??

Sure hope there are some Seattle freepers that will take her up on her offer and report back to us.

[thetruckster]

"Actually, you mean that the government should not 'impose its will' on your actions."

With regard to my personal body, yes, ma'am. Women do not need to go to an abortion clinic to have one. Would you have the government come in my home and tell me that I cannot give myself an abortion should I feel in need of one? Would you have the government make it illegal to impart knowledge to another who desired such knowledge?

"Just invoking "choice" or libertarian notions of limitation of government powers does not excuse the invoker from looking at the behavior they advocate permitting. Ultimately, every behavior, no matter how heinous can be posed as a question of choice. But the real question is: is this behavior acceptable?"

Is this behavior acceptable--to whom? "Acceptable" is a subjective term. Slavery used to be "acceptable." Abortion is "acceptable" to some and "heinous" to others. Qualitative judgments will abound forever on this issue and many others.

Free speech is sacred in this country and its exercise is by abortion protesters is a natural consequence of choosing an abortion clinic route. I would never impede the abortion protesters. Possibly they serve as a deterrent to getting into a situation of an unwanted pregnancy. However, free speech is not harassment.

We don't need a law against abortion. We need responsibility for unwanted pregnancies.

[Z in Oregon]

Yes we do.

We need responsibility for unwanted pregnancies.

Responsibility means no killing the baby.

[Z in Oregon]

Even libertarians concede that murder should be illegal. That is, people should not be able to choose to murder. Why should that change because the dead are helpless babies?

It changes to those for whom feminists are a political constituency to placate.

[Z in Oregon]

Vey good. Can that slavery-abortion comparision be reprinted at will?

[thetruckster]

You are right. However, it's not the government's place to tell me what to do with my body or my place to tell you what to do with yours.

[Z in Oregon]

In life, rights are hierarchical. Thus, a prenatal baby's right to life outranks a woman's claim to the right not-to-carry, because if she is denied, she loses 9 months she would rather have spent otherwise. If the baby is denied, the baby is dead. Thus, the baby has the higher-order case, and the government needs to enforce that.

[thetruckster]

I am not getting your logic. What does that mean--"In life, rights are hierarchial"? Please define what hierarchy means for you.

And the remainder of the reply--is that your own idea or is there a cite to that somewhere so I could read the entire philosophy?

For me, hierarchy means status of a member of any given species. The higher the status, the more power: the more "perks" the individual has. Status is based on the ability to fight and win that status. Winning status gives a spot farther up the hierarchial ladder, a spot that has to be defended by being able to fight . . . and the circle continues. The member with the highest status generally makes the rules that the others have to be subjected to until the high-status member is usurped.

[Z in Oregon]

What does that mean--"In life, rights are hierarchial"?

Specifically as applied to the abortion debate, it means that the prenatal baby's right (to not be shredded alive until dead at a Planned Parenthood clinic) is posited against a woman's claim that she has a right to not carry that baby to term.

In such situations, we have a conflict of rights.

The law has to side with one right over the other, so it has to have a principled basis for doing so.

That principled basis in the abortion case is the fact that retaining one's life (the prenatal baby's right) is of a higher order in a hierarchy of things members of society value than is the woman's claim to a right to not carry the baby to term.

Why is the baby's right to life higher in the hierarchy?

It deals with a permanent loss of what is at stake, not a nine-month loss. And without the right to life, no other rights can exist, which puts the right to life at the top of a hierarchy of social values.

What I refer to is a natural hierarchy of values, not power grabbed by sociopolitical influence...the latter would be what is advocated by the "pro-choice" contingent.

As you've likely gathered by now, I'm not a part of the "pro-choice" contingent.

I'm 100% pro-life.

[Iron Eagle]

The U.S Constitution neither permits, nor denies the right to an abortion. It simply is not contemplated. Accordingly, the 10th Amendment is implicated, meaning that it is a State's Rights issue. I am glad to see that Washington is enacting legislation that is consistent with the law.

There is no Federal, Constitutional Right to abortion. It is a legal fiction that will, at some time, be over-turned.

[Z in Oregon]

It is a legal fiction that will, at some time, be over-turned.

After the Republican Party takes control of the U.S. Senate. If you have a chance, send in a letter to the editor of your local paper supporting Republican candidates!

[Iron Eagle]

In Law School, I was both the editor of my law school newspaper and a member of the Catholic Thomas More Society. We had Justice Scalia as a guest one evening. He spent about an hour with us, and then took questions. Being the hot-shot I thought I was, I wanted to get him to make a public statement on the Constitutionality of abortion.

I quoted to him the same line from the Declaration of Independence. I said, given that statement, can't we agree that first and foremost, we all have the right to life. Without that right, we cannot pursue happiness. Does this not support the notion that the founders could not have supported abortion.

He looked at me, coked his head, and gave me the greatest headline I ever ran. He said, "The Declaration of Independence is a nice puff piece, but it ain't the law!" he went on to explain that abortion simply is not contemplated by the Constitution, therefore it is a 10th Amendment issue for the States.

The reasoning is so clear, so right, so Constitutional, and yet so ignored.

[stanz]

I fervently hope not.

[Between the Lines]

I understand that the Declaration of Independence holds no weight in law. But do not dismiss it as an argument against abortion as it does show the intent that our founding fathers had when creating the constitution.

We hold these truths to be self- evident...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

They chose created equal instead of born equal for a reason. They knew that by birth we are not equal, we are born rich, poor, kings and slaves, yet they acknowledged that at creation we are equal and have the same God given rights that a kings would. You underestimate the power that this document has in affecting our constitution. For while it was legal by the constitution to own and hold slaves, many saw in these same words (all men are created equal) that it was not right to do so and fought and died that this "declaration" be applied to the constitution. And it was!!!

So you see that the Declaration of Independence was the cornerstone in freeing us from England and a hundred years later in freeing the blacks from slavery here in our own country. It can and will be used again in this century to free the unborn in America! But only if we demand that the the original intent of our forefathers idea of "created equal" be applied once more, this time to those who have no voice in their own birth, those who were created equal but have been denied their unalienable right to life!

The Declaration of Independence may not be law but it is the truth and truth should guide all laws.

[thetruckster]

What you are saying is arbitrary, based on personal acceptance of arbitrary cultural and societal values. You are entitled to those views, no question. You (i.e., the government) are not entitled to tell me what to do with my body, as I am not entitled to tell you what to do with yours. You might think you know what is best for me, and I might think I might know what is best for you. However, this is moot.

My stance does not say that I am pro-life or pro-choice. That, as well, is moot (in the bigger picture--not my own personal sphere of influence).

The law, in its lumbering evolution, tries to balance the the scales of conflicting interests. In this case, societal and cultural mores are, to a large extent, driving the conflict. In a small village, births are blessed, whether they come from an "unwed" mother or whatever. In an enviroment with high populations, a lack of food or other provision, or other elements of stress, additional stressors such as outsiders, invalids, or even children have been done away with in some form or fashion in human populations throughout history in all cultures.

That I consider it sad and wrong and evil is my choice to so think of it. But it doesn't change the fact that aborting babies has been around forever and no law will ever prevent it.

[Z in Oregon]

First:

No law will ever prevent all instances of the thing it prohibits.

That fact does not preclude the need for the law, where it can be reasonably shown that the existence of the law, and penalties attached thereto, can result in a lesser number of instances of the thing prohibited by the law.

Second, regarding:

You (i.e., the government) are not entitled to tell me what to do with my body, as I am not entitled to tell you what to do with yours.

On what basis to you proclaim that view as an absolute by which society should be bound, instead of just the arbitrary opinion of those who proclaim it?

Third, the government exists to protect the lives of the people in the lands that it governs, above all else.

Fourth, what of the father of the baby? Every cell in his prenatal son or daughter is half of him. What is he doesn't want his prenatal baby aborted, and is willing to raise the child on his own? Then what, and why?

[thetruckster]

"No law will ever prevent all instances of the thing it prohibits."

That's the point and, for me, the bottom line.

"On what basis to you proclaim that view as an absolute by which society should be bound, instead of just the arbitrary opinion of those who proclaim it?"

The same basis as those who view the opposite as their absolute.

"Third, the government exists to protect the lives of the people in the lands that it governs, above all else."

I find this a naive position, or at best selective, depending on the current political agenda.

"Fourth, what of the father of the baby? Every cell in his prenatal son or daughter is half of him. What is he doesn't want his prenatal baby aborted, and is willing to raise the child on his own? Then what, and why??"

I just don't know what to tell you about that. Perhaps an agreement before playing dip the weenie is in order. After the fact is just a little late. Because . . . the father (being a male instead of female) doesn't have a uterus and all its attendant joys and sorrows.