[NYTr] If Roe Overturned, Most States Would Curb or Ban Abortion: Study

Fri Nov 9 16:12:04 EST 2007

Womens eNews - Nov 9, 2007
http://www.womensenews.org

If Roe Falls, States Ready to Curb or Ban Abortion

By Juliette Terzieff
WeNews correspondent

(WOMENSENEWS)--Women in a majority of U.S. states risk losing the right
to obtain an abortion due to changes on the Supreme Court bench and the
proliferation of abortion bans--some enacted, some in waiting--the
Center for Reproductive Rights said yesterday in its "What If Roe
Fell?" report.

A reversal of Roe v. Wade--the 1973 Supreme Court decision that
decriminalized abortion--would mean that abortion law falls to the
states, where anti-choice activists are pursuing a steady, two-front
attack against abortion rights.

On one front, activists are pushing contentious legislation challenging
Roe that is designed to be fought up to the Supreme Court. In the last
three years, 27 such abortion bans have been introduced in 14 states,
including Colorado, Georgia, Missouri and West Virginia.

Other states--such as Alabama, Delaware, Massachusetts and
Michigan--enacted bans prior to the Roe decision that are still on the
books. Many of the pre-Roe bans have been overturned or at least not
been enforced since 1973 but could be revived. Many include exceptions
to protect the life or health of the woman.

On the second front, activists are introducing "abortion
bans-in-waiting," or laws that would be enacted by a Roe reversal.
Because these state-level bans are not yet law, it is not possible for
pro-choice groups to mount legal challenges against them.

'Hard to Galvanize Public Response'

"It's a good strategy . . . a way for them to silently lay a foundation
largely without public knowledge," says Katherine Grainger, state
program director for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.
"Because they don't immediately go into effect now, it's hard to
galvanize a public response."

There were no abortion-bans-in-waiting laws in 2004, the center's
report notes, but by 2007 four states--Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Dakota and South Dakota--had passed them. Another five
states--Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah--have already
considered or are currently considering them.

Authors of the report--including Grainger and other legal
researchers--estimate as many as 30 states--including Ohio, Michigan,
Louisiana, Indiana, Oklahoma and Texas--could pass legislation to
restrict or altogether ban abortions in the wake of a Roe reversal.

Alaska, California, Florida, Maine, Vermont and New York are among the
20 where abortion is not expected to face immediate legal challenge.

Changes on the Bench

As state activism pressures Roe from below, Roe is also vulnerable from
above. Authors say changes on the Supreme Court--in particular the July
2005 retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, her replacement by
Justice Samuel Alito and the appointment of Chief Justice John
Roberts--have shifted the balance.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last April in Gonzales v. Carhart
upheld a federal law that banned a specific abortion procedure used
after 12 weeks of pregnancy and eliminated the precedent that legal
restrictions placed on abortion must include an exception to protect
the health of the woman.

"I remember when abortion was illegal, the days of coat-hanger
abortions," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said at the report's
launch. "I'm very worried a Supreme Court decision now would take us
back there. It is time to mobilize women to fight."

Sixty-three percent of 1,000 registered voters surveyed agreed that Roe
v. Wade is vulnerable, and 42 percent said they opposed leaving the
matter up to the states rather than the Supreme Court, in a poll
conducted by Lake Research Partners that accompanies the report. Seven
in 10 respondents said the government should not interfere with
abortions that are medically necessary.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, which promotes reproductive rights
nationally and internationally, issued a similar report in 2004.

Flagging a Quiet Effort

President Nancy Northup said the group updated the report to flag a
quiet but "dramatic and frightening attempt to create a post-Roe world."

Legislative opposition to abortion rights is underway in 17 states and
the report's authors say the goal is to get a case to the Supreme Court
where a reversal of Roe v. Wade is now possible.

The year following O'Connor's departure a dozen states passed or
attempted to pass laws to limit abortion rights. By 2007, the number of
such bills that were introduced skyrocketed to 38 in 17 states. It was
the most concerted legislative challenge since the early 1990s, when a
1992 Supreme Court decision--in Planned Parenthood v. Casey--held that
a state could enact laws to affect access to abortion in the first
trimester as long as exceptions to protect the health of the woman were
secure.

The only states where abortion rights would be preserved are those that
have protections established in their state constitutions, or where
state laws are already in place, the report finds. "Given the
variations in law and political climates in the 50 states, the
overturning of Roe would result in a patchwork of rights in which women
seeking abortions would be strongly protected in some states and
completely denied the right in others, with different levels of
protection in between."

Low-income women in particular would be affected, the report finds,
because they already struggle to find and pay for a local, legal
abortion.

"If Roe is overturned, there is a strong possibility that a
clandestine, illegal underground will again emerge to meet the need for
abortions, a need that virtually no one believes will disappear," the
report warns, noting that seven of the 10 poorest states in the country
are considered likely to ban abortions within a year of reversing Roe.

Pro-choice activists call for counter-activism to repeal existing
legislation, preparation to battle new state restrictions and support
for the Freedom of Choice Act, now being lobbied in Congress and some
states.

Introduced last April by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barbara
Boxer, D-Calif., the bill provides protection for women to make
decisions regarding their individual reproductive health needs without
any government interference, even if Roe v. Wade is reversed.

[Juliette Terzieff is a freelance journalist currently based in Tampa,
Fla., who has worked for the San Francisco Chronicle, Newsweek, CNN
International and the London Sunday Times during time spent in the
Balkans, the Middle East and South Asia.]

For more information:

Center for Reproductive Rights, "What If Roe Fell?": -
http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_bo_whatifroefell2e.html

NARAL Pro-Choice America, Freedom of Choice Act: -
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/freedom-of-choice-act.html

"Court's Abortion Ruling Undercuts Roe": -
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3139/