A.

Women are facing many barriers to access reproductive healthcare 

Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. 
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003 NAF 2006  

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed a woman's right to choose abortion in 1973, and the 
courts have upheld the core of that finding in subsequent cases. In 1988, the Supreme 
Court of Canada struck down laws prohibiting abortion. But access to abortion has been 
severely eroded. The most recent survey found that 87% of all U.S. counties have no 
 identifiable abortion provider. In non­metropolitan areas, the figure rises to 97%.  1  As a  
result, many women must travel long distances to reach the nearest abortion provider. 

But distance is not the only barrier women face. In the U.S., many other factors have 
contributed to the current state of abortion access, including a shortage of trained 
abortion providers; state laws that make getting an abortion more complicated than is 
medically necessary; state and federal Medicaid restrictions; and fewer hospitals 
providing abortion services. 

In Canada, even though there is no law restricting abortion, access to abortion care remains a problem for many women. There is a shortage of 
trained abortion providers; abortions are not fully funded in all provinces and territories; funded abortions are unavailable in some areas, there 
is no inter­provincial billing for abortions; and in some provinces there are limits on the number of abortions allowed in facilities in a given year

In addition, women from diverse backgrounds face unique cultural and information 
barriers to obtaining information about pregnancy options and safe, high quality abortion 
care. Many also lack knowledge about navigating the health care system or are 
unaccustomed to and anxious about interacting with health care professionals.  
A. Abortion is constantly condemned through rhetoric and language destroying feminism

Trish Wilson of The womens network is the editor at large for feminista. Works for
the Coalition for Parents and Families which is an organization which focused on
pending welfare reform legislation. She is also part of the National Writer's Union
"WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE FOLLOWING NOW v. SCHEIDLER" 2006
The use of language to condemn both feminism and abortion itself was employed and
encouraged. Dawn Stover, an activist with Advocates for Life Ministries, while speaking
at a group fund-raiser, had advised parents who had brought their children to the fund-
raiser to tell their children that abortion rights protesters were "sodomites" and the
"mouths of Satan." In a means identical to what I described in my earlier piece about anti-feminist propaganda ["Not The 'F' Word,"
Feminista!, Feb. 8, 1998.], PLAN's Joseph Schiedler, who was called the "Green Beret of the pro-life movement" by Pat Buchanan,
resorted to both name-calling and euphemism in his book "Closed: 99 Ways To Stop
Abortion." He emphasized the use of specific language. As reported by Faludi, "... when
speaking to the press, his manual instructed, Rarely use the word 'fetus.' Use 'baby' or
'unborn child.' ... You don't have to surrender to their vocabulary ... They will start using
your terms if you use them. Schiedler also prefers the use of other "inflammatory
rhetoric" that pro-lifers (a name that is a bit of propaganda itself, since anyone who
disagrees with their stance is automatically rendered "pro-death.") must use "... at
appropriate times to counter pro-abortion jargon are; 'holocaust,' for America's abortion
culture, 'abortuary' or 'death camp,' to describe the abortion clinic, 'abortifacient,' for pills
and IUDs, 'fornication,' for sex outside of marriage, 'adultery,' for 'having an affair.”
How about "hypocrites" and "woman-haters" for the anti-abortionists? Oh, my mistake.
The technique is supposed to mask the truth, not bring it out.

B. Being Pro-Life destroys the Feminist Movement

Kate Michelman, Former head of the NARAL Pro-choice of America, January 8,

2006; in an interview with Tim Russert, Meet the Press, NBC; page lexis.

You can’t be a feminist and oppose the act of abortion on moral and ethical, religious
and personal grounds on face value; absolutely cannot be. Many people who are pro-
life should respect the diversity of views on these issues related to pregnancy and
childbearing, abortion, and reproductive matters, that there is a diversity of views
and they are informed by one's values, as they are mine. My personal values
informed my decision about abortion. But you can be absolutely anti-abortion, if you
will, and pro-choice; believing that women ultimately, not the government, not
Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, but women themselves must determine
the course of their lives, and central to that determining the course of their lives is
determining when and under what circumstances they will become mothers. Because
the thing that most women want is to be successful at mothering. And the first
ingredient is being able to determine when that time is right and not being forced by
the government and by politicians or by judges to bear a child under circumstances
of one--not of one's choosing.

C. Upholding Roe v. Wade is the only way to access feminism

Rajesh Jain, Cavalier Daily; SOURCE: U. Virginia 2006 http://web.lexis-

nexis.com/universe/document?_m=f3461c93c417bcba9884b445f8534012&_docnum
=18&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkVA&_md5=eb477233f3c5d38bc458b25152b413fc

Before Roe v. Wade, money was a woman's surest way to an abortion. Doctors who
performed abortion illegally charged considerable amounts because of the risk the
doctors were taking if caught. Others received an abortion through a loophole in
many state laws. If it was deemed by a psychiatric evaluation that the woman in question was in danger of
causing damage to herself, an abortion could be completed. Again, this loophole was only available to
the wealthy who could afford psychiatric consultations. Those without this wealth
were forced into finding other options. In addition, a study done by Mark Graber of
Princeton University shows discrimination against minorities in Pre-Roe v. Wade
times. For example in New York City, pregnant white women were five times more likely to have illegal hospital
abortions than black women and 26 times more likely to have illegal hospital abortions than pregnant Puerto
Rican women. Granted,
both minorities have made significant strides since Roe v. Wade
that would curb these disparities, but disparities in health care for minorities still
exists. Likely, these disparities would increase if abortion is made illegal, but by how
much is not clear. Overall, overturning Roe v. Wade would make illegal, sometimes
dangerous abortions prevalent among American women. They would discriminate
against lower economic classes and minorities who would not receive equal
healthcare. Pro-life protesters would feel cheated by those seeking abortions in other
states, pro-choice protesters would be outraged, and desperate, confused women
would suffer with infection, sterility, and death. Nobody wins.

A.NAF provides availability to reproductive health care 
Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. 
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003 NAF 2006 
Ensuring that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care 
options, including abortion, is an integral part of NAF's work. Increasing access begins 
with training more clinicians to provide abortion services and extends to fighting 
restrictions in legislatures throughout the country.

The National Abortion Federation's Access Initiative Project was created specifically to 
address the escalating problem of limited access to abortion in the U.S. The Access 
Initiative Project works with medical residency programs, educational institutions, health 
care professionals, legal experts, public policy organizations, and organizations for 
women of color to ensure that qualified clinicians are able to get the training they need, 
including cultural and linguistic competency, to provide safe abortions.