Abortion

By Richard Lacayo

When the Supreme Court decided last week to review a Pennsylvania law that restricts abortion, it all but guaranteed that the long-simmering issue would come to a boil again just before the Republican Convention gets under way in Houston in August. The day after the court took the case, the streets of Washington offered a symbolic preview of the fight to come. To mark the 19th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that made abortion a federally protected right, pro-choice and pro-life demonstrators squared off in photo-op warfare.

The latest flare-up was the last thing George Bush needed in an election year. While the economy is still expected to be the key factor in November, the abortion issue could play a pivotal role in a close contest. Especially worrisome to White House chief of staff Samuel Skinner and pollster Robert Teeter are recent surveys showing that suburban women are willing to bolt the G.O.P. in droves if abortion rights are lost. And that's precisely what could happen when the court rules on Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania this term.

In recent years, the court's new conservative majority has been subjecting Roe to what looks like a reversal in slow motion. While never discarding the right to abortion altogether, the Justices have interpreted it so narrowly that states are now free to enact restrictions that would have been struck down in earlier years. The Pennsylvania case could complete the process -- especially now that conservative Clarence Thomas has probably tipped the court even further to the right.

The law in question requires minors to get parental consent and wives to notify their husbands before having abortions. It also obliges doctors to inform abortion seekers about potential medical complications and mandates a 24-hour waiting period. Though the court could use the case to overturn Roe, it is more likely to rule narrowly on the merits of the Pennsylvania law. That could still open the way to a flood of other state restrictions.

A lower federal court upheld all portions of the law except the spousal- notification provision. But in the process it declared that abortion is no longer a fundamental right that requires courts to apply "strict scrutiny" to any restrictions that states might apply. If the Supreme Court endorses that view, it would send a signal to legislatures that even steeper obstacles to abortion might be acceptable so long as they can be justified by the easier standard of a "legislative rationale." Says Kathryn Kolbert, an A.C.L.U. lawyer who will argue the case before the court: "If states are given a green light to pile on one more restriction after another, you are basically eliminating the procedure without having to ban abortions outright."

Abortion-rights groups pressed the court to take the case in time to hand down a decision before Election Day. They wanted pro-life candidates -- starting with the President -- to be called to account by voters. Since becoming Ronald Reagan's vice-presidential running mate in 1980, Bush has gingerly staked out a position consistent with his party's anti-choice plank. This year, with all five major Democratic hopefuls rushing to affirm their pro-choice credentials, Bush might try to move toward the center as November approaches. But in some recent state elections, candidates who tiptoed away from pro-life positions got little thanks from voters. With the New Hampshire primary only weeks away, the President must also protect his right flank against Pat Buchanan. "I think my party should be pro-life," insists Buchanan. "And if that loses us votes, so be it."

Speaking by phone last week to an outdoor rally of pro-life activists in Washington, Bush repeated his devotion to the "precious gift" of life. The same day, the Republican Party announced that Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles, a strong pro-lifer, would serve as chairman of the G.O.P. platform committee. But while Nickles is trusted by party conservatives, he enjoys a reputation as a compromiser, a quality Bush badly wants in his platform chief. White House moderates are still hoping to include wording in the platform's preamble that would make it clear that the G.O.P. is "nonexclusionary" on the abortion issue. That lukewarm invitation will be cold comfort to pro-choice voters if Roe is gutted.

Meanwhile some Congressmen have readied a freedom-of-choice bill that would attempt to compel states to keep abortion legal and uniformly available. Any such law would be subject to challenge as an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights. But it would give Democrats the advantage of forcing Bush to cast a highly visible anti-choice veto in the midst of his re-election campaign.

With reporting by Julie Johnson/Washington