ATF Fights Board of Health Regulations
(From Womankind July 1973)
(Editor's Note: The
Abortion Task Force was organized as a workgroup of the CWLU after
Roe v. Wade effectively legalized abortion.)
It was a “stormy session” there at the June 20th meeting of the
Chicago Board of Health, reported the Chicago Tribune. The ATF had
come to present criticisms of the recent abortion clinic regulations.
But, it became clear that Dr. Eric Oldberg, President of the Board
and the Board had already made up their minds on everything.
Our crowd
of 51 became frustrated and disruptive, finally walking out of the
meeting. The ATF had met with Dr. Oldberg several weeks before, to
discuss objections to the regulations, and he agreed that the ATF’s
suggested changes were “reasonable” and said that he would
work to bring the Board around. Though we had trusted him to be on
our side, changes presented to the Board were minimal.
At the
Board meeting, some of the arguments we presented for changing
the regulations were the following:
1) The regulations required a 48-hour “think it over”
wait for the woman between the physical exam and tests and the abortion
itself. We objected to this as medically unnecessary and, from our
experiences through ACS, psychologically unnecessary.
Most
women have made up their minds firmly and carefully and do not need
to be told to think it over again. This wait would also be a great
handicap and expense to women for out of Chicago or with young children
or working – all those who historically have had great difficulty
getting safe, inexpensive abortions. The Board changed the 48 hours
to 24 – we still objected but the Board was rigid.
During
the discussion it became clear that they lay people on the board
were just following the lead of the doctors, and certainly were not
representing health consumers – and least of all, women – with any independent
opinion. The Board members were able to treat our concerns casually
because they are appointed by Mayor Daley for life, and have little
to fear from us.
2) The
regulations contained a requirement for a full pathological examination
of the removed tissue. And our experiences and medical consultants
felt this was medically unnecessary and expensive ($10-40). The Board
seemed concerned about detecting obscure medical problems while there
was no provision in the regulations for VD or cancer tests. The only
woman on the Board came to support us on this point.
3) The
regulations called for certain unspecified but extensive equipment
be provided in each room where abortions are preformed. The Board
agreed with us that one set of this equipment was sufficient for
a whole clinic, but refused to change the wording. They insisted
that the real meaning was understood and that inspectors wouldn’t
be arbitrary about it. We continued to object because we know how
city inspectors can hassle people around technicalities and vague
rules.
We felt
badly that we had been only partly successful in changing the abortion
regulations. But we are determined to learn for this experience –
to mobilize our allies such as doctors to support us openly and to
plan other meetings to better focus on the most important points and
really fight for them strongly.
