Unfortunately, Abortion-Counseling Ruling Isn’t a Joke

“Are you happy about this pregnancy?”

Family planning counselors ask that question of thousands of American women every day, women whose pregnancies take them by surprise.

Then the counselors listen to the responses, which come with big smiles, or with tears, or with worried “I don’t knows.” They list the options after that. Legally, there are three.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, suggests that key question should be rephrased, with the question mark taken out.

“You will be happy about this pregnancy,” is the message today. If you are poor, that is, and wish the government to help you out.

But what about legal abortion?

“The project does not consider abortion an appropriate method of family planning,” is what the counselor, or doctor, or any other health care worker in a facility that accepts federal funds, must reply.

No emotion, please. No compassion. No exceptions for the drama of your private concerns.

Don’t tell me about what led you here. There is nothing I can do--not if you doubt you’ll be a good mother, not if you can’t be a good mother, and certainly not if you don’t want to be a mother at all.

So just get out. Maybe you should go someplace else, except that I can’t tell you where. Don’t you know what appropriate means?

Ah, but remember: Five men of the U.S. Supreme Court love your unborn child. Unfortunate about the rest of that messy business: life after the womb.

Let them eat cake.

I wish that this were pure exaggeration, part of an outrageous farce. But now the joke is on us, we who believe that a physician has the obligation to inform patients of all their medical options and we who believe that, ultimately, it is a woman’s right to choose whether to give birth.

Abortion has been legal in this country for more than 18 years, and most Americans believe that is the way it should remain.

But the U.S. Supreme Court, picking up the ball from the political cowards on Capitol Hill, is running women’s right to choose straight into the ground--and dictating medical practices and morality too.

Earlier this week, the court upheld restrictions on U.S. government family planning help abroad as well. No taxpayer dollars may be used to fund organizations, or governments, or anybody else, who suggests that abortion might be an appropriate choice.

That translates in whatever language you might choose: Spanish, Hindu, Chinese and on and on. The meaning is the same.

Let them eat cake.

I stopped by Planned Parenthood in Santa Ana the other day, talking with administrators, counselors and women who had come for family planning help.

There is a sign at the front door. “Shoes Must Be Worn At All Times,” it says.

Here there is a sliding fee scale that conforms to a client’s ability to pay. Most of those in higher income brackets presumably go someplace else, where for the time being, their doctor’s medical advice will not be dictated by the high court.

The administrators here use words like appalling and shocked. They say they are counting on Congress, that they have faith that the Supreme Court decision will be rendered moot.

If not, the agency, with six local clinics, will forgo its $112,000 in annual federal funds. Gov. Pete Wilson, among others, has pledged to help.

“We are going to continue non-directive objectives counseling, no matter what,” says Margie Fites Siegle, the agency’s executive director for Orange and San Bernardino counties. “I would be just as angered and outraged if the court had decided that abortion were the only option.”

“The Supreme Court simply does not belong in that private room with a client,” says the agency’s Santa Ana manager, Michelle Tibbs.

I went into some of those private rooms, to see just where the Supreme Court decision might fit. Counselors, non-judgmental, laid the options out: motherhood, adoption or ending the pregnancy soon.

For those that said they were happy about the prospect of giving birth, the word abortion was not brought up. In all cases and with all options, the women were told that Medi-Cal would defray the costs.

Center assistant Maria Zepeda was talking to one 19-year-old Latina who brought along her 2-year-old son. The woman, unmarried, unemployed and living on her own, said her positive pregnancy test was not exactly good news. She hadn’t used birth control, just because.

“Have you talked to your partner about this?” Maria asks.

“Well, he said he would want me to keep it, but I don’t want to,” the woman says.

Maria asks if she has talked with anyone else. No, she has not. Does she know that prenatal care is available? Yes, she does.

Does she know where to go for help? The woman takes the pages of information placed in her hand. Maria presses on, but the woman’s mind appears to be made up.

“Do take the time to discuss all your options,” Maria tells her just before the woman leaves. Her Medi-Cal appointment is now in place.

“I have no idea what I would do if abortion were illegal,” the woman tells me. And many of her friends, she says, still think abortion is against the law.

But if they had found themselves in her situation, pregnant and poor, the Supreme Court says there is effectively only one option. Give birth, or else . . . .

I only wish that this were part of an outrageous farce.