19911990s NEWS
The Eleventh Hour
Show #286
Title: Fast Forward The Next Decade (the issue of abortion)
Guest: Faye Wattleton - President of Planned Parenthood
Topic: Abortion as political issue of the 90s, interview with reproductive rights activist, Faye Wattleton
Original Broadcast Date: 12-28-89
Show #286
Title: Fast Forward The Next Decade (the issue of abortion)
Guest: Faye Wattleton - President of Planned Parenthood
Topic: Abortion as political issue of the 90s, interview with reproductive rights activist, Faye Wattleton
Original Broadcast Date: 12-28-89
This reel is part of one of our Specialty Collections. Online viewing or downloads of low-res versions for offline viewing will be available for only more day, though. Online viewing or downloads of low-res versions for offline viewing has now expired, though, and cannot be viewed online. "Pro" account holders can download a low-res version for offline viewing.
Sign up for a "Pro" account to download this footage.
This reel is currently not available for online viewing.
Sorry, this video is temporarily unavailable for online viewing or download. Please try again later.
Restricted Material
Access to this reel with audio is restricted. It will be available for only more day.
Access to this reel with audio has expired.
| 00:01:57 0 |
Opening slate - The Eleventh Hour show #286
|
| 00:02:17 19.79 |
Quick montage of current day events, Wall Street trading floor, protestors, the Falwells, MTV, rock and roll, Reagans, space, AIDS, Andy warhol,etc.
|
| 00:02:48 51.45 |
The Eleventh Hour funding by charitable foundations is announced and overlays show graphic.
|
| 00:03:09 71.77 |
Show opener
|
| 00:03:27 90.36 |
Show Host Rpbert Lipsyte standing next to 4 TV screens, and reviews the topic of today's program, the abortion issue of the '90's featuring Faye Wattleton, the President of Planned Parenthood Federation.
|
| 00:04:00 123.24 |
INTERVIEW INSERTION BEGINS:
Robert Lipsyte: Faye Wattleton has been President of the Planned Parenthood Federation for almost 12 years, she was hired to turn a white moderate middle class organization into a leader in the battle for Reproductive Rights. And along the way, she has come to believe that abortion is the symbolic issue of the 90s, that the future of America as a free society depends on women's control of their bodies. I spoke with a Wattleton at Planned Parenthood's Midtown Manhattan offices. |
| 00:04:23 146.19 |
INTERVIEW WITH FAYE WATTLETON CONTINUED:
Robert Lipsyte: Why should reproductive rights so important in the early 70s, now seem to be so important again in the 90s? Faye Wattleton: Well, I think that reproductive rights have really become the fulcrum of attention for people who really are deeply distressed by the changes that have taken place in the last 20 years with respect to privacy, the status of women, the changing roles of women and men, and reproductive rights really is symbolic. And the energy for the opposition and the discomfort with a lot that has taken place over the last 20 years is really focused on that particular area of public debate. Robert Lipsyte: Specifically, what is abortion symbolic of? Faye Wattleton: Well, abortion is symbolic of the ultimate release, or the ultimate control that a woman can have over her reproduction and her released from her reproductive prison imprisonment. That is to say that abortion gives a woman control over her fertility at the utmost aspect. And there are a number of people who are deeply distressed by that kind of control over the circumstances of the development of life and its various stages before birth. Robert Lipsyte: Because that that seems religious and theoretical and almost abstract from a social and political point of view. What does it mean, to be able to control women's rights to have or not have children? Faye Wattleton: Well, what it means politically and socially is that it gives women the capacity to control their fertility in a way that that enables them to take charge of their lives and to establish their social equality through the equality that they now will have or that they now do have with respect to fertility management. There isn't much that a woman can achieve in life if she can't control her fertility. It's really kind of fundamental to our physiology and our anatomy, that it is a unique feature of womanhood, that we bear children. And if we cannot control that process, then all other elements of our lives are really not in control. So with respect to the attainment of social equality, the aspirations of women, the capacity for, for us to chart our own destiny, our reproductive capacity must be seen as an integral part of our entire integrity. And if that aspect is controlled by the state, then in a fundamental sense, the most personal and the most basic aspects of our lives and our movements are controlled by the state. Robert Lipsyte: It's a kind of a tyranny. I hear you saying a kind of Fascism. Faye Wattleton: Well, I do believe that it is tyranny when the state engages in policies that restricts the most personal aspects of our lives. It is as tyrannical as the state saying that you and I can't sit here together because we don't share the same eye color or the same speech pattern or some other artificially defined characteristic. It's as though the state say, saying to the people of America, that you have to engage in certain speech. And there are certain things that you can't say that you're restricted by government decree from saying certain things. I mean, we would see that as outrageous as somehow untypical and unAmerican and typical of the American way, and I don't see that reproductive control is really any different than those fundamental rights, those rights that are protected by our constitution and Bill of Rights. If our most personal bodies are not off limits to the federal government, then what else can be? Robert Lipsyte: What I also hear is that you're totally disregarding the debate, the debate that it's murder, the debate that a life is being snuffed out, you're saying there is no debate, Faye Wattleton: I am not disregarding that debate. And I think that that is a legitimate debate. And I think that there is every reason for the debate to go on. The point at which I take strong exception is that the government must not control that debate, and impose a system or a standard that requires conformity to a single point and a single answer. Certainly, we can debate these questions as moral issues within the context of our religious values within the context of our definition of family and life. And all of those are elements that make up the integrity of the human character, but the government has to stay out of it. These are very serious questions in which very reasonable and good people have wide divergence of opinion, the government must stay out of it. And on that point, I take great exception to the government being involved. Robert Lipsyte Yeah, and the government is even more in it now after Webster, because it's 50 governments that are in it rather than 150 governments Faye Wattleton: 50 Governments and the Congress of the United States. And that's, that's really the great tragedy of Webster, and why the abortion issue, unfortunately, will dominate American political debate for the next decade or longer. Webster said that the Supreme Court now is going to step back a bit and not hold the right to abortion as a constitutionally protected right, but one that can be restricted by state governments. Now, the Supreme Court went on to say that, at least in the case of Missouri, those provisions are constitutional. But we're not willing to tell you how far we're willing to go to permit certain restrictions, let the states go to it and decide for themselves what laws they want to pass and then they can come back to us. And if we approve, then those state laws can be enacted. So it invites a political struggle over abortion for the foreseeable future. One that should be a personal issue, not debated by politicians in Albany or in Washington. And now the Supreme Court has opened season on the political debate. Robert Lipsyte: Now, as the abortion debate suffuses all political discourse, and you feel it, this is going to be for the next decade, through the 90s it's going to have impact on a lot of areas. Abortion is is going to be this this wedge. women in politics, poor people in politics, perhaps the future of the Democratic Party, the republican party as well? What What do you see happening? I mean, how do you see? How do you see the impact in other aspects beyond abortion? Faye Wattleton: Well, just as the abortion question is not simple, it's not very easy to define what will happen in a very simple and straightforward way. I think that you're quite correct, that it will take on many features, and many elements will be involved. What has been impossible for those who want to outlaw abortions to achieve, is a wholesale reversal of legal abortion in this country. So instead of continuing to pursue that agenda, what they will continue to do is to try to cut off funding for low income women for abortions, that is government financing for low income women for abortions. They will try to restrict abortion services for teenagers, they will try to make it impossible for women beyond the first or second trimester of pregnancy to obtain an abortion without severe burdens. And that really complicates the issue of abortion in a way that you get into major elements around the the outer fringe in which there is a lot of debate and a lot of divergence of concern. So when you're not looking at a straightforward attack on its legality, but looking at an approach in which the attacks are really peripheral, it is guaranteed to play out in many aspects in American political life. |
| 00:12:19 622.28 |
INTERVIEW INSERTION - CONTINUES:
Robert Lipsyte: Well, taking one example the the funding, Medicaid, abortion funding abortions for poor women, if you take that away, you have said, You will now no longer be offering the same level of medical care period to poor women as the middle class women. Faye Wattleton: Well, federal funding for poor women for abortions was taken away in the early 80s, we have waged a very fierce battle to try to restore funding for poor women for abortions in the most recent session of Congress for at least in cases of rape and incest. Our view is that if the nation has a federal finance system for low income people for health care, then abortion should not be excluded. If childbirth birth is included, the government has an obligation to stay neutral. The Supreme Court said the government can spend its money as it chooses. So that through the question of federal financing for low income women threw abortions into the political arena, this is how these things get politicized. And so we can expect that struggle to go on that even if it is impossible to outlaw abortions directly. It is at least possible in the minds of those who want to outlaw abortions to restrict abortions for more and more women. And of course, that burden falls heaviest on the poor and the young. Robert Lipsyte: But even two areas before we even get to abortion, which which seems to have been lost in all this. One is sex education, and the other is pregnancy prevention. Faye Wattleton: Well, I think you're right, it is lost in this because those people who are bent on making abortion illegal are not interested in joining with us, and expanding contraception and working to build a nation in which we do truly have sex education as a widespread practice throughout our society. But keep in mind, the earlier part of our conversation, we discussed the need to control sexual options and sexual behavior, sexual morality. And so when you want to control that as a fundamental aspect of the debate, then you must control all other aspects. Abortion only being the tip of the iceberg. Those people who are against abortion should want to build a society in which unintended pregnancy is a rarity. Instead, they want to restrict access to contraception. They believe that sex education is immoral, and that it should be restricted certainly in our nation's school systems. And that only leads to a conclusion that they really want to restrict moral choices and the standards of morality Robert Lipsyte: that wouldn't leads you to believe that. Faye Wattleton it certainly leads me to believe that there is no other logical explanation. If you want to make abortion illegal, and you don't want to make it available, then why would you not want to work with us on prevention? I mean, I mean, it defies logic, even for a person that may not agree with my point of view. Robert Lipsyte: one of the things that, that astounded us several weeks ago, we did a series on on children, we called it "the kids are not all right". And going from the problem of being a starting life as a one pound crack baby, of an unwanted fostered child, of kids caught in the criminal justice system, and ultimately, betrayed by the educational. There came out in this society that there seemed to be no collective will to take care of children, other than to make sure they were born. Faye Wattleton: I don't think there's any question that we have failed miserably in the care of our children as a society. Certainly when we look at other industrialized countries, and the care that is is given to children through health care, through education, through a range of health services and other kinds of supportive services and resources that give kids a better than average chance of succeeding, The United States falls way back in that in the pack on that one. Even if we look at sex education alone, there are roughly a dozen states in this country that offer sexuality education, as a requirement in school systems. In European countries, it is widely available throughout the societies that we have have examined and compared and with respect to to prenatal care for women who are poor and women who do not have access. It has been an interminable struggle to try to achieve prenatal care for women so that their children are born as healthy as possible. And prenatal care leading to to infant care and and early childhood development. All of these are aspects of early childhood development and care that we have very often ignored and neglected. And then to live for the last decade under two administrations that consider the investment in our children, somehow to be extravagant and not consistent with with fiscal integrity has really been a very sad social policy and social segment in our hearts Robert Lipsyte: Are you basing your future hopes for the next decade on the Democratic Party? |
| 00:17:28 931.39 |
INTERVIEW INSERTION CONTINUES:
Faye Wattleton: I'm not placing my hopes on one party against another I'm placing my hopes on the the progressive outlook that that politicians elected officials can hopefully achieve in the next few years that lead us out of the last decade of the century, think the changes that are taking place in Europe, with the recession and the receding will to engage in warfare gives us an enormous opportunity to look at our domestic issues in a way that we have not had, at least in my lifetime. We have in recent years been been told that we must build a strong national defense and who of us can can debate that. But also there has been an enormous neglect of our domestic and social policies that has given us a widening gap among the poor, a great many social problems that have been exacerbated that need the collective attention and commitment of policy leaders. That is not to say that we have gotten become engaged in very expensive government programs. But it does mean that we need a national debate and a collective will to address the problems of drugs, of illiteracy, of homelessness, of healthcare, of hunger. These are serious issues, not the issue of whether a woman will control her fertility, but the issues of the future of our society and thereby at the world. Robert Lipsyte: What you just said, those are the serious issues. You don't think that abortion is a serious issue. Faye Wattleton: I think it is a serious issue for the person involved. I do not think it should be a serious issue of some politics. Robert Lipsyte: You don't think it should be an issue at all? Faye Wattleton: I don't think that it should be. Yeah, absolutely. I do not think that it is a political issue. I think it is a personal issue that should be left to the individual to decide. Who is a politician in Washington that knows nothing about me my life circumstances or another woman's life situation, what she needs and what her her desires for her life is, to decide for her what she will and won't do with her personal life. I'm saying that there are overarching and overwhelming social problems that need to be addressed. And Americans need to be left alone to try to carry out their personal lives as they see fit. Robert Lipsyte: Yea, we still need these politicians to manage some aspects of this country. How do you see this shaping the Democratic Party in the Republican Party in the 90s? Faye Wattleton: Well, let me just say that I'm not ready to throw out politicians. So yes, we do need politicians to shape these policies. I believe that the Republican Party is really in a very tough spot. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush has painted himself in an even tougher spot. He had an opportunity to really offer a moderating compromise around these difficult issues. Instead, he has taken a harder line, I think the Democratic Party will take great advantage of the mood in the country that is opposed to this position of this administration. And the republicans will have a very difficult time trying to carve out a more moderate position. And I hope that they will it is not. This is not this ought not to be a partisan issue. It ought to be an issue in which there is great consensus in both parties, that the American people want the government to stay out of it. And we will stay out of it. Robert Lipsyte: Well, certainly it was an aspect of the governor's race in New Jersey. Faye Wattleton: It was an aspect of the governor's race in Virginia. It was an aspect of the of the mayor's race in New York, it will be an aspect of of off year elections and and special elections, as we saw in San Diego, California. Unfortunately, it is going to permeate politics because of the Webster decision that said that this is a political issue, not one that is solely protected by the Constitution. Robert Lipsyte: One of the things I think I keep hearing you say is that abortion is is not an issue for politics for public debate. It's it's a personal thing. And yet its symbolism has been enormous. One of the things that seems to have done is revive the women's movement and the civil rights movement. And that's kind of a rallying cry. Faye Wattleton: I could have done without that revival, and I think a lot of women could have there's no question that once the status quo had been disturbed as a result of the Webster decision, that the broad public sentiment in support of legal abortion was awakened and and really disturbed and now you see a galvanization of interest in energy and doing something to reverse this trend. We had long held that the lack of acrimony among the broader silent majority should not be judged as disinterest or lack of support for keeping the government out of these issues, but rather a comfort with the status quo, as the Supreme Court had carved out legal abortion in Roe v. Wade. Now that has been disturbed. The misfortune, of course, is that while this has rallied various movements into action, in defense of the threat that now is perceived and is very real, women suffer. Poor women are denied access to abortions, teenagers are afraid to go to a health agency if they can't go to their parents. Those are the people who pay the enormous price. And I think that we could have done without that price to be paid. Robert Lipsyte: Now, the the scenarios of the 90s, the way in which we can diverge is is One: a constitutional amendment in which every woman has the right to total reproductive choice, or in another direction, even a greater suppression of choice in kind of following those those two possibilities, how do you think it will change the way we live in America? Faye Wattleton: Well, I think that the abortion debate will change the way we live, and that it will require those who seek political office to take different positions about fundamental life in America, so that you're likely to see different kinds of people seeking and gaining elective office, so that the philosophies will be different. I think that those people who have riden in on the strength of support of a coalition, a narrow coalition of Americans who were willing to vote this issue and voted only will now either have to change their position and deal with these issues differently, or will be turned out of office. So we're likely to see a very different profile. |
| 00:24:07 1330.29 |
INTERVIEW INSERTION, CONTINUES:
Robert Lipsyte: That's a little vague and abstract which makes me wonder why you were not so willing to talk about the democrats and the republicans? You don't see necessarily as that bipartisan issue. Faye Wattleton: Oh I speak of this as people seeking elective office. Not all Democrats believe that the government should stay out of these issues. Not all republicans believe that the government should take charge of these issues, (Robert Lipsyte: you're not hitching your star on either party?) I mean, this is an issue that I think really is as fundamental as free speech. I believe it is as fundamental as our ability to choose the God of our choice, as fundamental as our ability to assemble with whomever we choose to meet and participate in discussions. Robert Lipsyte: Well do you do see this as some sort of wait, if abortion rights are totally suppressed? Do you see as some sort of wait that is going to lead this country down into some other area of suppressions? Faye Wattleton: Well, I don't think that there is any question that if there is a repression of our reproductive lives and the privacy that is protected, as carved out by various supreme courts, and in court interpretations of the Constitution, that we are vulnerable to other types of government repression and coercion. I think that illegal abortion is simply a government a government that is bent on coercing a point of view that is inherently dangerous for society in general. If a government can prevent a woman from controlling her fertility, what is there to say that a government will not prevent us from engaging in a whole range of activities that we now take for granted as private and protected from government interference? If a government can Robert Lipsyte: What is the difference between that and saying that perhaps this is the first step towards total repression? Faye Wattleton: Well, I'm not saying that it is the first step toward total repression. I don't believe that that will happen. I think, however, it is the first step and and is very symbolic of repression that can go over into other aspects of life. Now, whether it is total or partial, we should be no less vigilant in our opposition to it any more than someone came in that comes in and says to you, well, I'm not going to totally repress free speech. It's just these few little words I want you to forego. I'm going to make them illegal. And I'm going to say that if you utter them, you will be prosecuted. Well, of course, I mean, that isn't to say that you are absolutely repressed. But it certainly is not consistent with the premise that this country was built on. And I think that is why we have to be vigilant about these encroachments around the edges and and in the fundamentals as well. Robert Lipsyte: What would you like to happen in the 90s? Faye Wattleton: Well, I would like to see this country really come to grips with major social policies that bring this country together economically, socially, and preserve our political, ethnic and religious diversity and pluralism. I think that there has been an enormous polarization that has been created by a segment of our society that is intolerant of diversity and differences among us. We should celebrate those differences. I think that there has been an enormous neglect of the have nots so that that gap has widened. And that is only going to create social tensions and social difficulties ahead. If we do not address it, and address it very, very quickly. The influence of our society in the face of enormous poverty and need cannot continue as a disparity without us paying an enormous cost. So I hope that in the 1990s, we will really face up to it as a nation, and I think the changes that are taking place in the world order, give us an opportunity to do so. Robert Lipsyte: Okay, Wattleton, thank you so very much for being with us. Faye Wattleton: Thank you for having me. Tomorrow night fast forward the next decade concludes with a philosopher, financier Felix Roden, who looks at the 90s by the light of the bonfire years. That's the 11th hour. I'm Robert Lipsyte. |
| 00:28:01 1563.92 |
Interview concludes. Host Lipsyte standing in front of four tv screens, announces the conclusion of "Fast Forward the Next Decade" on tomorrow's program. He announces The Eleventh Hour and introduces himself. Show ends.
|
| 00:28:16 1579.3 |
Show credits
|
| 00:28:44 1607.32 |
Funding for The Eleventh Hour is announced. Show graphics.
|
Jump to this point
