Excellent question. I recall it is a NARAL figure, but I can’t find the link. I’m still looking.
I don’t expect you to take the number on faith, but I believe the argument still stands. Abortion clinics are uncommon at best in states where anti-choice activists are most vocal, and there are often serious restrictions placed on them in as well. Access to abortion is still extremely limited.
MR
It’s not exactly a rigorous argument - what does “access to abortion” mean, anyway? A clinic within walking distance? An hour’s drive? If a clinic is close at hand, but picketed two days a week by Operation Rescue, does that destroy its “accessibility?”
In general, given the number of abortion facilities across the country, I think a fair use of the word “access” would reveal that far more than 20% of American women have “abortion access.”
But [Clinton voice] it all depends on what the word access means [/Clinton voice].
On this particular topic I will cheerfully accept being called a kneejerk voter. There are some simple facts:
**
[li]The struggle for women’s rights has been a grueling one and so long overdue as to be pathetic in a “free” nation such as ours.[/li]
[li]Until women have socio-economic parity with men the vigorous protection of their rights is a critical issue.[/li]
[li]That a legal body such as our Federal legislature should be given the power to determine the destiny of women’s rights is absurd so long as it remains a vastly male dominated clique.[/li]
[li]The thought that a particular religious faction deems it their right to dictate moral policy in a country founded on the separation of church and state is at the very least chilling if not downright frightening.**[/li]That said, I also find it ridiculous that anyone would believe that Bush will not take every convenient measure to erode if not outrightly thwart Roe vs. Wade. A candidate who is willing to be perceived as the “moral majority’s” lapdog is a threat to the fundamental tenets of our Constitution.
Both of the candidates’ denial that they will have litmus tests based on the issue of choice is so ridiculous as to be laughable. I just happen to feel that Gore’s vigorous support for the freedom of choice betokens a better fate for our nation than Bush’s willingness to set back the legislative clock by half a century.
As I final point I will say that I believe that all choice, be it religious, political, sexual orientation or reproductive, stems from the exact same root in the Constitution. Alter that fact one whit and the path has been cleared for further abrogation of our individual freedoms.
http://dailynews.philly.com/content/daily_news/2000/10/20/local/JILL20.htm
Who’d’ve thunk it!
Yeah…I had heard that before. Unfortunately, she doesn’t seem to hold much sway in this regard on her menfolk.
Laughable though they may be, don’t dismiss their denials outright (but don’t accept them, either). I would imagine that both candidates realize that, if they were elected, their position would be tenuous, at best. As a result, they’d probably be unwilling to commit heavily to any one side of an “emotionally-heavy” issue, for fear of committing political suicide (notice how most of this race has been kept to the center of the political spectrum?). After all, I’m sure that both of them have more to worry about than Roe vs. Wade and abortions in general.
Which isn’t to say that there isn’t a significant chance of court rulings being overturned. However, I think it would be prudent to look at more than RvW… which I have no doubt that most people here are doing, I just felt like pointing it out… y’know, bolstering my self-esteem an’ all 
the original quote from Barbara Bush can be found here http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/gopchoice000512.html
" Mrs. Bush’s comments came last December during an interview with ABCNEWS’ Cokie Roberts on This Week.
“I believe in states’ rights and I don’t think it should be a national platform. There’s nothing a president can do about it anyway, in all honesty,” Mrs. Bush said during the broadcast. "
IIRC, the 80% number means that 80% of women do not have access to legal abortions within the county where they live.
eg. In Louisiana if you want a legal abortion you have to drive to Baton Rouge.
Although I know of one local GYN who would perform abortions and then chart and document that he did something else. Then he would charge the insurance for the something else. He still does it as far as I know, and I would think this is also done in other places.
Well, okay, that’s an exageration…I think it probably is quite safe…but it is pretty scary to find out just how extreme the views of strict constructionists like Scalia go! According to a column by Patricia Williams in this week’s Nation, Scalia, “during a 1997 visit to Columbia Law School, stated publically that if Brown v. Board of Education came to him as a case of first impression, he would vote against the majority.”
Now, admittedly, he clearly stopped short of saying he would now vote to overrule the precedent and I doubt that five votes on the Court would ever, ever do that, but I do think it is scary that this is the sort of Justice that Bush expresses he would like to populate the Court with!!!
And while Brown v. Board of Education is itself likely safe, one wonders if it might get eviscerated over time by other rulings narrowing its interpretation and scope, just as Roe v. Wade is getting.
I really doubt that Bush was referring specifically to Scalia’s “Brown vs. Board of Ed.” quote. Hasn’t Scalia expressed more than two political views over the years?
This sounds like criminal fraud to me.
Bush’s election would serve to tighten the anti-abortion factions hold on the republican party big time.
Of course he’d do whatever he could to overturn or limit Roe v Wade.
Within a few days of the second debate where he said he would not seek to withdraw RU-486 from the market he was saying he’d do whatever he could to limit it’s availability. Either he changed his mind or he’s cutting the truth a bit close to the wind on the issue.
I wasn’t claiming that Bush personally wants to overturn Brown vs. Board of Ed. I was just noting that the people whom he holds up as examples of justices he likes and would like to appoint more of (and of the whole “strict constructionist” school that he admires) hold some very extreme views. That, to me, is scary!