home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=89TT0205>
- <title>
- Jan. 23, 1989: Pro-Choicers Gird For Battle
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989
- Jan. 23, 1989 Barbara Bush:The Silver Fox
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- LAW, Page 55
- Pro-Choicers Gird for Battle
- </hdr><body>
- <p>The court prepares to hear a key abortion case
- </p>
- <p> After completing their medical-history forms, patients at
- the Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Ill., are asked an
- unusual question: Would they be willing to write a letter
- thanking the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices for the right to
- have an abortion? Few refuse. Says Lori, 30, a businesswoman
- who terminated her pregnancy there earlier this month: "It
- really makes me mad that they are trying to outlaw it."
- </p>
- <p> For months, pro-abortion advocates have been desperately
- trying to harness the anger of women like Lori. The reason:
- they fear that the high court, with its newly conservative
- majority, may tamper with the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which
- legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. Last week the court
- seemed to take a tentative step in that direction by announcing
- that it will hear Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. The
- case involves a 1986 Missouri abortion law that would have put
- a number of obstacles in the way of a woman seeking abortion.
- </p>
- <p> Defenders of abortion rights have good reason to be
- concerned. Says Duke University Law Professor Walter Dellinger:
- "This is not a case that needs to be heard unless the court
- wants to review Roe v. Wade." Since the court's last major
- abortion ruling in 1986, Justice Lewis Powell, who was part of
- the pro-choice majority, has been replaced by Justice Anthony
- Kennedy. Choice advocates feel Kennedy would not have been
- appointed unless President Reagan believed he was willing to
- strike down Roe. The increasingly vocal right-to-life
- supporters, smelling possible victory for their cause, were
- delighted by the court's decision to hear the Missouri case.
- </p>
- <p> Galvanized by the threat to Roe, pro-choice groups have
- embarked on an all-out lobbying effort. The National
- Organization for Women is planning a huge march in Washington on
- April 9. The National Abortion Rights Action League is
- organizing a drive to send a million postcards to the high
- court. Another tactic is to elicit a large outpouring of
- friend-of-court briefs from groups like bar associations, civil
- rights organizations, Senators and Congressmen, and
- population-control organizations.
- </p>
- <p> The choice forces also hope to persuade the American Medical
- Association to file a brief on the medical advantages of legal
- abortions. Advocates of such operations see them as the only
- safe alternative to often fatal clandestine methods, symbolized
- by the coat-hanger emblems on many pro-choice posters. The view
- that abortion at least does not harm women got a boost last week
- from a surprising source: Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who,
- after a year of study, found no proof that women obtaining legal
- abortions suffered a greater incidence of physical or
- psychological harm than women who brought their pregnancies to
- term.
- </p>
- <p> Some critics of the pro-choice strategy argue that efforts
- to lobby the court may do more harm than good. "A letter-writing
- campaign is a wonderful thing to do if you're trying to persuade
- Congress or the Missouri legislature," says an experienced
- Supreme Court lawyer. "It's not what you do to the Supreme Court
- of the United States." But NOW President Molly Yard counters
- that "the court is influenced by public opinion, as is every
- other political institution in this country." The truth of that
- claim, like the future of abortion rights, may be put to a
- decisive test this term.
- </p>
-
- </body></article>
- </text>
-
-