(8 of 9)
THE OPPOSITION. Anti-abortion forces are active on several fronts (TIME, March 29) and have organized mail and telephone campaigns to pressure legislators into voting against abortion liberalization. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has founded a group called Birthright that seeks to offer women with unwanted pregnancies an alternative to abortion. The organization, which provides counseling, prenatal and postnatal care and adoption services, has received 1,800 calls since its formation last spring.
For the time being, at least, political efforts to alter abortion laws appear to be stalemated. Bills to repeal New York's new law failed to make their way out of committee during the past legislative session. Proposals to liberalize abortion laws in 29 other states fared no better. Many experts believe that the permissive policies in several states have relieved pressure on standpat states to act on abortion. Federal action is also unlikely, though Oregon Senator Robert Packwood has introduced a bill that would allow any physician to perform an abortion on demand during the first 31 months of pregnancy. The bill is given little chance of passage.
Still, some changes in the laws may be forthcoming. Some pro-abortion physicians want to limit to 20 weeks the period during which an abortion may be performed. The restriction would, however, impose a serious handicap on doctors trying to determine whether to perform an abortion on genetic grounds. Many tests for fetal abnormalities cannot be made before the 16th or 18th week of pregnancy, and some take as long as 30 days to perform and evaluate. There is also sentiment for limiting abortions to regular hospitals. Dr. Hall, a leader in New York's abortion-reform movement, feels that clinics are unsuited to handle the hemorrhaging that can result from even the most carefully performed abortion. Others, including spokesmen for Planned Parenthood, argue that clinic abortions are as safe as those performed in hospitals, and that eliminating clinics would deny many the opportunity to obtain abortions.
COURT TESTS. Meanwhile, restrictive laws are under challenge in the courts on the grounds of vagueness, violation of the right to privacy, and the denial of individual rights. Wisconsin's law is under a cloud; no final ruling has yet been issued on the constitutional question, but a U.S. district court has forbidden the prosecution of a Madison gynecologist for operating an abortion clinic. California law is also the subject of a court test as pro-and anti-abortion forces battle over an appellate court decision overturning part of the state's liberalized 1967 law.
The U.S. Supreme Court could render all these cases moot during its upcoming term. The court has agreed to hear challenges to Texas and Georgia abortion laws, and if it should decide for the plaintiffs, its action could nullify most anti-abortion laws.