page 4
Politics
Violence In South Africa Increases
by Trudee F. Johnson
South Africa has been steadily
and violently marching towards
imminent civil war between the
white minority ruling class and its
large, repressed, non-white
population. The country's newest
white president, F. W. De Klerk, in
two dramatic gestures early last
month symbolizing the
government's new sincerity to share
power with all South Africans,
sanctioned the previously outlawed
black African National Congress
(ANC) and also announced
political prisoner Nelson
Mandela's unconditional release
from a life-sentence after
twenty-seven years of
imprisonment. Not only that
nation but the world cheers
Mandela's personal victory, but
while much of their nation hails
him as their saviour and symbol of
freedom, the rest wonders how
effective a role this seventy-one
year old man can play in bringing
about a peaceful agreement in
response to his country's need for a
new government.
In ordei“4»f real talks to begin
between De Klerk's white
government and the black
population, the ANC demands that
1,000 other political prisoners be
freed and the three-and-a-half
year old state of emergency be
lifted. De Klerk has already
indicated his willingness to discuss
these issues in "pre-talk" talks if
the homelands and cities are calm.
Once these conditions are met, the
now legal ANC will have little
reason not to suspend "the armed
struggle in a situation in which
violence of the apartheid system
continues unabated." Once a
settlement on these points is
achieved, the stage would be set for
real talks concerning a new
constitution to begin. The
predominant demand from the
blacks has been "one man, one
vote," but the whites' fear of being
dominated by the black majority
must be addressed and provided for.
Compromise and conciliation will
be the watchwords necessary for
the peaceful negotiation of any
settlement.
Nelson Mandela is the enigma
from the black camp on whom a
peaceful solution seems to rest. His
strength and integrity make him
the hero of many blacks because his
freedom has come without any
weakening on his part. He refused
his freedom on any pre-condition -
that he live outside South Africa;
that he live in a remote homeland;
that he renounce violence. One of
his first statements outside prison
was that he and the ANC still
believe that armed resistance is
necessary.
The job that faces Nelson
Mandela is not a simple one.
While it is not certain exactly
what his position in the ANC will
be, he must help unify the factious
black population, who by no means
are all aligned with his ANC
party. The Zulus, in fact, have
caused violent disturbances in their
homeland the^ past two weeks as
a means of jockeying for a voice and
power at the negotiating tables.
Mandela must also persuade all
concerned parties that negotiations
are not possible without
compromise, that the white fear is
understandable and even
reasonable. He must accomplish
all this, and perhaps much more.
In addition, he must stand up to all
the pressure and, perhaps most
importantly, he must stay alive.
eaiiii
Comments on Idaho’s Abortion Proposal
by Trudee F. Johnson
Upsetting pro-life activists,
Idaho's Govenor Cecil Andrus
repealed the st^te legislature’s
anti-abortion bill which would
have disallowed abortions except
in cases of no'n-statutory rape
reported within seven days, incest
if the victim is under 18, severe
fetal deformity, or a threat to the
woman's life or health.
An avowed anti-abortionist who
purportedly believes abortion
should be allowed only in extreme
cases such as rape, incest, or to save
the woman’s life, the governor was
expected to sign the bill into law
although he had expressed
reservations over the bill's
strictness.
Governor Andrus denied he was
influnced by threats either of an
economic boycott or withheld votes
at the polls as he seeks a fourth
term at the state's helm. Andrus
also stated that he acted in the
best interests of the state after he
was assured by attorneys on either
side of the abortion question that
this legislation, so narrowly
stated, would undoubtedly be shuck
down by the Supreme Court in
expensive litigation.
Branding him a hypocrite,
pro-life advocates may retaliate at
the polls in a political backlash,
emphasizing the no-win situation
Governor Andrus has found himself
in.
by Karen Lewis
(Information for this article came from the March 22 issue of the New York TIMES and the April 1 issue of the
Charlotte Observer.)
On March 21 Idaho legislators passed an anti-abortion bill considered by many to be the most restrictive in the
country. On March 30, barely thirty minutes after the 1990 legislative session adjourned for the year. Democratic
Governor Cecil Andrus refused to sign the bill into law. The debate still rages in Idaho.
The bill, made possible by the 1989 Supreme Court Webster decision giving states more power in controlling
abortions, would have made 95% of current abortions illegal. It proposed to place the burden of whether or not a woman
is eligible for an abortion on her doctors. Under the bill doctors could have performed a legal abortion in cases of:
-rape, if reported to authorities within seven days
-incest, if the victim is under 18 and reports the crime before seeking the abortion
-"profound" deformity of fetus
-the threat of physical health of the woman. (There were no provisions for her mental health.)
Doctors performing abortions under any other circumstances could have faced civil fines up to $10,(X)0 and civil suits
brought about by involved individuals such as the father. Women would have been subject to up to $10,(X)0 in fines only
if they attempted to perform the abortion themselves.
A key point in this bill was putting the burden of legal responsibility on the doctors. Anti-abortion forces were hoping
that this stipulation would gain the support of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, who has supported
abortion rights in the past but has, in her written decisions, stopped short of an "unambiguous declaration that Roe v.
Wade [the 1973 decision making abortion legal in the US] should be overturned" (.New York TIMES). Her concern in
this matter has been any penalties aimed at women seeking abortions; the architects of this bill had hoped that by
aiming them at doctors instead, they might gain her support.
The American Civil Liberties Union had vowed to challenge the bill had it been passed into law. Pro-choice lobbyists
were concerned that the decision would have "forced the women of Idaho into back-alley abortions or into trying
something themselves," and, because the burden of proof of legality of the decision to perform an abortion would have
fallen on doctors, it would have "set up an impossible situation for medical professionals" (New York TIMES).
(Dther concerns included violating the separation of Church and State, since Idaho's conservative Mormon Church
has led the fight to make abortion illegal.
State Senator Joyce McRoberts, a Republican, called the bill "clearly unconstitutional" and proposed eliminating the
male senators from such votes in the future because they seem too interested in passing bills which do not really involve
them.
Pro-choice groups in the state and across the nation, who had considered a boycott of Idaho products if the bill had
passed, breathed a sigh of relief last week when Gov. Andrus, who has spoken out against abortion in the past, refused to
sign this bill into law. "I have to do what 1 think is right," he said in his announcement made barely a half an hour after
the legislature adjourned for the year. Gov. Andrus seemed satisfied that he had made the right decision, claiming that
the bill would not have been upheld as constitutional. Political results were, at the most, a small part of his decision, he
said. Anti-abortion groups have promised to defeat him in his bid for re-election in November.
As it stands, the legislature cannot try to override his veto this year and will hav'e to wait until 1991 for further action.
Rep. Gary Montgomery, one of the main designers of the failed bill, has vowed to refine and reintroduce it in 1991.
Idaho was the fifth state this year to reject a form of the national model that anti-abortion forces want to use to
challenge the US Supreme Court's commitment to legalized abortions. It is surely not the last to face such a dilemma
as the struggle between pro-rchoice and anti-abortion groups continues.