home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
020392
/
0203103.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
5KB
|
114 lines
<text id=92TT0232>
<title>
Feb. 03, 1992: Taking Aim at Roe v. Wade
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992
Feb. 03, 1992 The Fraying Of America
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 16
ABORTION
Taking Aim at Roe v. Wade
</hdr><body>
<p>The Supreme Court may be poised to withdraw the rights it granted
in 1973. Will George Bush pay the political price?
</p>
<p>By Richard Lacayo--Reported by Julie Johnson/Washington
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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."
</p>
<p> 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."
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
</body></article>
</text>