If Woman Has Abortion Choice, It May Not Be an Easy One

Perhaps no other issue divides our nation like abortion, straight through the heart and mind.

No analogies are quite apt, although activists on either side of the issue continually search for that perfect bumper-sticker slogan that will finally “win” this battle once and for all.

“It’s not a choice. It’s a baby.” Or how about, “If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?” There is no end in sight.

I have never made any attempt to hide my own views on abortion, which are pro-choice. For that, many letter-writers have told me, I will be eternally damned. Others say they just can’t understand it, seeing as how I am a mother myself. Then they take pity on my kids.

I have stopped arguing about the morality of abortion because it is a waste of time. My morals are my own, I tell such people, then I usually end the conversation soon.

But this matter of choice, I believe, must still be explored.

Donna Haney is a single woman, 37 years old, a real estate appraiser in South Orange County, twice married and divorced, a condo owner and now, a mom. She never planned on having children. It just wasn’t her. She had one abortion before, by choice. Her own.

Now she has Garett, who is 2 years old.

She also had a lawsuit against Garett’s father, which she recently settled out of court for $20,000. The choice of Garett’s father, a local unmarried physician, was that Garett never be born.

The question at the core of Donna’s lawsuit is this. Can a man force a woman to abort? What if he doesn’t want to be a dad?

The Supreme Court has already struck down a provision of a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands that they planned to have an abortion. Such is an example of an undue burden on women, the court ruled.

And now Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court nominee, has told the Senate Judiciary Committee that when it comes to abortion, a woman’s must decide for herself what to do.

“It is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg said.

Even if states pass laws restricting women’s choice about abortion or giving an equal voice to fathers, the Constitution protects the woman’s right “to make basic decisions about one’s life course,” she said.

Whatever her decision may be.

Donna Haney began seeing Garett’s father in the fall of 1989. She was his patient. They spent hours talking during office visits, not so much about her health, but about their lives. He later performed surgery on her vocal cords.

“During this time,” her lawsuit says, “personal confidences were shared which led to a personal relationship which included social contact, dating and a sexual relationship.”

In July, Garett was conceived and a few weeks after that, Donna told this man that a home pregnancy test was positive, but that she would likely have an abortion soon. He suggested that was a good idea.

Donna later made two appointments for an abortion, but canceled both.

She then went for counseling, confused. She thought that having this baby might not be too smart and she worried about the father’s choice. He was adamant about her having an abortion. She worried that this might make life more difficult for their child.

She asked him to join her in counseling, but he declined.

Donna and the father had no plans to marry, and in fact, their relationship was growing more rocky with each day that her pregnancy progressed. (Donna would later take him to court on a separate paternity case and a DNA test would prove that the child was his. The court ordered him to pay child support.)

But Donna was of a certain age. She was surprising herself with a vague longing for a child. Those sentimental television commercials that showed kids running around the house and playing in the yard were starting to choke her up.

She finally decided that she would carry her pregnancy to term. She wanted this baby. She wanted to be a mom. But, still, she had doubts.

Her lawsuit says this: “On or about Sept. 13, 1990, Defendant . . . called the Plaintiff and inquired about the Plaintiff’s decision regarding aborting or carrying full term their child. Plaintiff informed Defendant . . . of her inability to make that decision at that time.

“Defendant . . . then proceeded to say ‘Well, let me get right to what I really called about. My old girlfriend called, she has AIDS.’ Plaintiff proceeded to request further information regarding this statement. . . . Defendant . . . replied that since ‘you won’t cooperate with me, I won’t tell you.’ ”

And this, Donna says, made her extremely upset.

She asked the child’s father several times to get tested for HIV and he refused. She got tested herself and the result was negative but her doctor told her she must be retested in six months to be sure. By that time, her pregnancy would be eight months along.

Could she have contacted HIV? Would she pass it to her child? Was it all a ruse to coerce her into having an abortion? Donna says she was an emotional mess. Her counseling bills increased. And then after her second negative HIV test, she sued.

Garett’s father finally did get tested for HIV, on the advice of his attorney, after Donna took him to court. He tested negative.

Was the story about his former girlfriend simply a ploy to get Donna to abort? Was it, as Donna’s lawsuit alleged, “willful, despicable, malicious and oppressive?”

The court never got a chance to decide. And as is standard in settlement agreements, in paying Donna $20,000, Garett’s father admitted committing no wrong.

But Donna made her own choice about having a child, as is her right.