Before Roe: Abortion Policy in the States

4. Party Politics in New York

4 Party Politics in NewYork Among the first states to repeal its abortion law in the pre-Roe period was New York, which in 1970 joined Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington in legalizing early elective abortions with few restrictions. Unlike Washington, which bypassed the legislative route and its inherent obstacles by holding a referendum on repeal, pro- and antiabortion forces in New York fought it out on the legislative floor for four years. New York had the largest and most diverse ethnic and religious population in the country, as well one of the most powerful Catholic Conferences. Yet of the four states’ bills, New York’s had the fewest restrictions, thus making it the purest repeal bill. In his book about the early days of the abortion campaign , Lader maintains that “it was partly a movement of chance and almost reckless determination, for there was little logical reason that all the necessary pieces should fit together in 1965 rather than 25 years later.”1 This observation captures the volatility of political change from the perspective of an activist. But to fully understand why proabortion activists succeeded, it is also necessary to analyze the changes in the party structure in New York and the resulting opportunities and resources activists encountered. Pre-Roe abortion policy in New York developed in two distinct stages. In the first stage (1965–67), ALI-based abortion 77 reform laws were introduced and defeated. In the second stage (1968–70), changes in the New York Legislature and the New York Catholic Conference (NYCC), coupled with feminists’ demand for unrestricted access to abortion, enabled pro-abortion activists use the support they had built to push for repeal. The First Stage: 1965–1967 The Push for Reform In 1964, pro-abortion activists in New York took their first step in organizing support for change by forming the Committee for a Humane Abortion Law, later renamed the Association for the Study of Abortion. A survey taken in that year indicated that obstetricians in New York supported abortion reform, yet the idea was still controversial.2 Like other early pro-reform groups, such as the California Committee on Therapeutic Abortion, the association lent legitimacy to the fledgling campaign because its members included physicians, theologians, lawyers, and other elites. It was thus able to press into service elements of all the relevant discourses at the time. The group began a public campaign to promote reform by sponsoring films, writing letters to obstetrics departments in medical schools, printing brochures and quarterly newsletters, creating mailing lists, and contacting foundations.3 Members’ efforts were bolstered the following year by the Griswold decision. Although encouraged, activists realized that using the decision to challenge restrictive abortion laws would take several years, and would require a physician who was willing to break the law and risk professional ruin.4 For this reason, they decided to broaden 78 Chapter Four their efforts by embarking on a legislative campaign to pass new laws. The positive reception they received at a public forum on reform sponsored by the Yorkville Democratic Club in 1965 led to the introduction of the first abortion-reform bill later in the year by Assemblyman Percy Sutton and Senator Manfred Ohrenstein, both downstate reform Democrats.5 Like reform bills introduced in other states in this period, the New York law was based on the American Law Institute ’s guidelines. At the bill’s hearing in March of 1966, held by the Assembly Committee on Health, abortion activists and members of the Liberal Party and the New York Young Democratic Party testified in its favor.6 The NYCC considered the bill’s chances of making it out of committee so slim that it did not send a representative to testify against it.7 Although the bill died in committee, the hearing was covered on the front page of The New York Times, introducing the idea to an audience outside the reform clubs and activist circles. After the bill’s defeat, Assemblyman Albert Blumenthal, a reform Democrat from Manhattan, agreed to sponsor a second reform bill the following year.8 Blumenthal’s interest in abortion stemmed from his general concern with issues of public health, and as chairman of the Assembly Committee on Health, he framed abortion as a public-health issue.9 Blumenthal’s bill incorporated the ALI-based sections of the Sutton bill and added the requirement that a committee of physicians be established to approve...